The England and Wales Court of Appeal has ordered Apple to pay all of Samsung's legal fees arising from a dispute over whether or not Samsung violated Apple's registered design for a tablet computer. The order comes after Apple flagrantly thumbed its nose at a previous court order requiring Apple to post public notices that Samsung did not infringe, instead using the notice to claim other courts had concluded Samsung "copied" the iPad.

Apple has sued Samsung in the US and around the world, alleging Samsung copied Apple's designs and technology for the iPhone and iPad to make its own competing Galaxy smartphones and tablets. But Samsung filed a lawsuit in the UK to get an affirmative declaration that Samsung's tablets did not infringe on a registered EU community design for a tablet that Apple says formed the basis of the iPad that was released in 2010.

A UK High Court judge ruled that Samsung did not infringe on the design, and the Court of Appeal later affirmed that decision. Apple was ordered to post a notice on its website and in several UK publications noting that the court found that Samsung did not infringe Apple's design right. The order's intent was to counteract the publicity over the court battle, in which Apple repeatedly called Samsung a "copy cat."

Apple added additional text to the court-ordered notice which suggested that other courts found Samsung in violation, including a US jury that awarded Apple $1 billion in damages.

The Court of Appeal called the move a "plain breach of the order," and ordered Apple to post a revised statement that did not mention other court rulings or claims of "copying" the iPad.

"The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying," Sir Robin Jacob noted in the final order, which was published online on Sunday. "There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it."

In addition to further stipulations about how the notice must appear online and in print, however, the court further ruled that Apple must pay Samsung's legal fees on an "indemnity basis."

"Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, 'standard' basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court," Robin wrote. "Apple's conduct warranted such an order."