Dyson Might Sue Samsung In Australia Over Vacuum ‘Rip-Off’

Dyson Might Sue Samsung In Australia Over Vacuum ‘Rip-Off’
Facebook may have decided that you shouldn’t see the news, but we think you deserve to be in the know with Gizmodo Australia’s reporting. To sign up for our daily newsletter covering the latest news, features and reviews, head HERE. For a running feed of all our stories, follow us on Twitter HERE. Or you can bookmark the Gizmodo Australia homepage to visit whenever you need a news fix.

Samsung and Dyson, two giants in the home appliance sector, are both currently warring over alleged patent infringement in the UK courts. Now, you might think, “why do I care when we’re all the way down here?”. You should care because if Dyson wins its action in England, it may end up suing Samsung Down Under as well.

Dyson told us this week that it’s not considering bespoke legal action in the Australian courts just yet, however, that position may change depending on the outcome in the UK.

Dyson said that it “believes Samsung’s machine infringes one of our patents relating to steering and we have only issued proceedings in the UK. It is our hope this will yield a worldwide solution. The machine is currently available in Australia, UK, Benelux, Russia, South Korea, Singapore.”

The machine in question is the Samsung Motion Sync vacuum, a bagless unit with nifty wheels unveiled at this year’s IFA conference in Germany. Dyson is suing Samsung over the unit in the English High Court for alleged patent infringement.

Sir James said of the Motion Sync:

“This looks like a cynical rip off by the giant Korean company Samsung. Although they are copying Dyson’s patented technology, their machine is not the same. Samsung has many patent lawyers so I find it hard not to believe that this is a deliberate or utterly reckless infringement of our patent. We have been forced to issue proceedings in the English High Court, but I would much rather invest in research to develop new technology than have to sue.”

We’ll have to watch that case carefully now to see if it spawns copycat litigation in Australia.