Apple's claim was always spurious

If I recall, Apple's legal team wrote that selling the doll would be 'a criminal offence', which is so patently untrue that I am amazed any legal department would have been responsible for it.

It is, at most, a civil offence or (tort), and only then in jurisdictions which allow post-mortem personality rights. So while the doll certainly could not be sold or advertised in, say, Indiana without risk of (civil) legal proceedings (Indiana law has personality rights which extend 100 years post-mortem), it could certainly be sold in some other states without any realistic prospect of litigation. The 'single publication' rule cited on the 'Right of Publicity' site above might apply, but if the products are not available within a jurisdiction with suitable personality rights laws, no case could succeed in the first place.

And, of course, this doesn't affect the world outside the US anyway, as separate cases would have to be brought in each international jurisdiction, where local laws permit.

But here's the thing – most 'ordinary' people are not likely to want to spend the best part of $100 on a Steve Jobs doll. Those who would might actually prefer it if it was difficult to get hold of, as it would become more exclusive, so more 'collectable'. If the threat of litigation prevents the doll's legal sale in California, I doubt it would affect sales too much.

(Two things: first IANAL, though, apparently, I understand the difference between a criminal offence and a civil tort better than Apple's lawyers. Secondly, the Steve Jobs doll was pictured with an iPhone prop, and Apple would be able to sue for that everywhere; I suspect it might not ship with something that looks exactly like an iPhone.)