Apple too cool for Court

Well, we now have the first instance UK judgment on the merits of the Apple/Samsung iPad tablet design infringement case.  Result: no infringement.  Judge Colin Birss sitting in the High Court holds that the Samsung Galaxy tablets are "not as cool."
There are plenty of procedural points on stays and other matters, but from a substantive point of view, the meat of the judgment is at paras 189-190:

189 This case illustrates the importance of properly taking into account the informed user's knowledge and experience of the design corpus. When I first saw the Samsung products in this case I was struck by how similar they look to the Apple design when they are resting on a table. They look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent. The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other but they form a family. There are differences all over these products but the biggest differences between these various family members are at the back and sides. The user who is particularly observant and is informed about the design corpus reacts to the Apple design by recognising the front view as one of a familiar type. From the front both the Apple design and the Samsung tablets look like members of the same, pre-existing family. As a result, the significance of that similarity overall is much reduced and the informed user's attention to the differences at the back and sides will be enhanced considerably.
190. The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. The overall impression produced is different.

As always, Judge Birss's analysis is logical.  It does, however, seem out of line with the approach of the General Court and the Court of Justice as regards which views are most important: in T 9/07 (the Grupo Promer/Pepsico Rappers case) the side view was downplayed, and likewise in T-153/08 (the Shenzhen Taiden v Bosch Communications Equipment case) a picture on the lid of a device was downplayed because the lid was not visible in normal use.  Much OHIM case law is to the same effect.  If that approach had been taken, the result might have been different.