Once physics and usability enter in to the design process the constraints can be such that there will be fewer and fewer options and room to play without impacting those in a negative way.
Design is always a compromise. By going for a minimalist design you remove all of that room so any minimalist design for a device will likely be very much like every other minimalist design.
The Hofmeister kind is an addition that does not impact functionality, it is the opposite of going for something minimalist. It is a design component specifically added as a signature.
Now if Apple had added a feature that is not relevant to functionality instead of removing a whole pile of stuff that was not relevant and someone copied that particular element they'd have a case imo. As it stands all they've done is taken the device to its logical conclusion. That should not be a protectable configuration.
iPad: aluminium back, aluminium stretching out to create a visible border around the front of the device. Prominent single physical button on front of the device. 4:3 form factor.
Galaxy Tab: black textured plastic (?) back, front of the device pure black. No physical buttons on the front. 16:10 form factor.
But sure, identical on the outside...
Brands each have a signature look. Sure, when there are frivolous patents that are a poison on the industry, but this is about whether Samsung crossed the line in how deceptively close their tabs look to an iPad. The German court seems to think they did. And I bet they did more analysis than most of us.