In a split decision, the Federal Circuit has rejected the lower court’s holding – vacated and remanded.

[Developing story: Updated 5:58 am and 9:00 am PT with more comment].

This week, Apple won an important victory against arch-enemy Samsung, as a U.S. appeals court ruled that the South Korean tech giant should have been banned from using select Apple features within some of its products.

Apple claimed the patents, especially “slid to unlock”, was crucial to the popularity and sale of its 2007 iPhone. The settlement finds Apples appeal justified, overturning the district courts ruling. “Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products”, Apple said in a statement. Indeed, our opinions in the most recent cases between Apple and Samsung do not even mention the right to exclude as a possible basis for injunctive relief. After a trial past year , Samsung was found to infringe on these three patents, and Apple filed for an injunction to stop it from using them.

Judge Kimberly Moore wrote the decision, and Judge Jimmie Reyna concurred. A spokesperson for Samsung notes that the company will take the matter of injunction to a full bench for review. In a dissent, Sharon Prost, the appeals court’s chief judge, found Apple had failed to prove meaningful harm from the patent violations, describing the technology as “minor features” in iPhones.

This is not over yet. It just means that this case will be sent back to the U.S District Court that refused to issue the injunction to reconsider its ruling.

The battle between Apple and Samsung began in 2011, four years after Apple released its first iPhone.

Samsung had the backing of Google, HTC, LG, and Rackspace Hosting, but it wasn’t good enough.

The decision, however, will act as a warning for China-based budget handset makers, which have been copying Apple devices’ key features. The company says it will appeal the decision. Daniel Bull: So Apple only managed to corrupt two of the judges this time?

Is something like “slide-to-unlock” an invention that needs protecting? But the appeal court said that the evidence shown does not have a strong case. Lawyer’s fees probably do this more efficiently than anything.

Said old Sammy mobes being the Galaxy S3 and older models, the latest of which came out in 2012 – which aren’t exactly flying off the shelves these days. Samsung is now on to the S6, so these aren’t exactly piled high. “Apple does not seek to enjoin the sale of lifesaving drugs, but to prevent Samsung from profiting from unauthorised use of infringing features in its cellphones and tablets”.

“If you look at the Xbox One, I don’t really know what that’s trying to be as a piece of tech”.