Sure...as soon as you stop selling the Galaxy S phones in the US since it was the part of the verdict the jurors did find in violation.

As usual, Groklaw has helpful comments:

With a breathtaking immediacy, we see the post-verdict maneuvers begin in the Apple v. Samsung case. Samsung has now filed with the District Court a motion [PDF] to immediately lift the preliminary injunction on the one device the jury didn't find infringing which had been blocked by a June 26 order [PDF] enjoining Samsung from "making, using, offering to sell, selling in the United States, or importing into the United States the Galaxy Tab 10.1."

The jury didn't know that, of course, or didn't connect the dots on this either. For whatever reason seemed good to them, they didn't find the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringing Apple's 'D889 patent. And that was the only one that the District Court judge and the Federal Circuit thought [PDF] should be blocked by an injunction pending the outcome of the trial. Neither the judge nor the Federal Circuit seemed to think the other Apple patents were likely to prevail, but with this jury, the Alice in Wonderland of juries as I think of them, it was the opposite.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120827143911783

My hunch is that this hurry-to-be-done jury, eager to show 'balance' by tossing a bone to Samsung, arbitrarily picked the very Samsung product that two courts had ruled looks the most like an Apple product.

Here's a more detailed critique of that jury.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390

Apple may end up losing more because the Galaxy Tab can enter the U.S. market than it gains by keeping out some easily tweaked phones.

And you and I will get a chance to discover if our court system can fix the results of a really dumb jury decision.