ITC hands down ban on older Apple products in Apple v Samsung suit

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/04/us-apple-samsung-patent-idUSBRE95319C20130604

A U.S. trade body found the Silicon Valley giant had infringed on a patent owned by the Korean company and slapped a ban on the sale of certain older iPhone and iPad models sold by AT&T Inc.

The U.S. International Trade Commission, an independent federal agency, issued a limited order stopping all imports and sales for AT&T models of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G. The versions targeted are more than a year old but are still solid sellers.

All such exclusion orders are sent to President Barack Obama, who has 60 days to review them. If he does not veto the order, it goes into effect.

"We are disappointed that the commission has overturned an earlier ruling and we plan to appeal. Today's decision has no impact on the availability of Apple products in the United States," Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said in a statement.

Designed to be a trade panel, the ITC has become a popular venue for patent lawsuits because it acts relatively quickly and it can order import bans, which are more difficult to get from district courts.

Samsung said in a statement that the ITC decision "confirmed Apple's history of free-riding on Samsung's technological innovations."

"Our decades of research and development in mobile technologies will continue and we will continue to offer innovative products to consumers in the United States," it said.

Tuesday's ruling overturned a decision by ITC Judge James Gildea, who ruled in September that Apple did not violate patents at issue in the case, which was filed in mid-2011.

Apple was found to infringe on a patent that relates to 3G wireless technology and the ability to transmit multiple services simultaneously and correctly. It is essential to ensuring that the devices are interoperable.


The U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and the Patent and Trademark Office have all said that infringement of these "standard essential patents" should mostly be punished by monetary charges, not sales bans.

An exception would be in the rare instances where the infringer refuses to negotiate a license or to pay.

The usual expectation among companies has been that standard essential patents will be inexpensively licensed to anyone.

Samsung, which is battling Apple in court in some 10 countries, had also accused Apple of infringing on three other patents, but the ITC found that Apple did not infringe these.

Apple has a parallel complaint filed against Samsung at the ITC, accusing Samsung, an Apple chip provider, of blatantly copying its iPhones and iPads. An ITC judge in that case found that Samsung had violated one patent but not a second one. A final decision is due in August.

Apple has waged an international patent war since 2010 as it seeks to limit the growth of Google's Android system. The fight has embroiled Samsung, HTC and others that use Android.

The ITC's decision came on the same day that President Barack Obama weighed in on curbing a totally different type of patent lawsuit - those brought by companies called "patent trolls." The disparaging name is because these companies make or sell nothing, but they specialize in suing others for infringement. Obama asked for new federal regulations on these concerns and action from Congress.

The offensive - announced before Obama makes a fundraising trip this week to California's Silicon Valley - came as U.S. lawmakers and courts are seeking ways to reduce the number of unwarranted patent lawsuits.

Samsung did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case at the International Trade Commission is No. 337-794.

Older products, but the article mentions they are still strong sellers. iPhone 4s on AT&T start at 99 cents, so they're moving volume with the cheap crowd. If Apple follow suit though, when the 5S/6 is released, the 4S and 5 slide down and the 4 is pushed off the bottom. Not sure if they follow the same route with the iPads though, the 3rd gen is expensive to produce due to its older silicon manufacturing, so the 2nd gen being much cheaper to produce.

A ban on the 4S, 5, iPad 3/4/Mini would be a devastating blow.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Meh, both sides needs to stop. Only lawyers win.

Hopefully, the new Presidential directive that is aimed at patent trolls alleviates the need for innovators to defend themselves in court by filing lawsuits.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
Boy, Apple's 'litigate not innovate' strategy is reaaaaally bearing fruit, isn't it?
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
because that's what the OP wants to see. its his fantasy.

Uh, no . . . clearly, I need to go down a few more shades. That was a hypothetical situation owing the near useless of this 'victory' as the parts potentially banned are on their way out the door anyway. Had this suit awarded bans on the 4S, 5, and current generation iPads, Apple would effectively lose their main money makers in one swoop.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
8,463
7,684
136
And another ruling that comes far after it might have actually served a purpose. Apparently there's up to 2 months before the order goes into effect, so Apple would have time to shore up their stock, which they might not even care about considering that they'll have the next iPhone out in 3-4 months.

The process really needs to be sped up if cases like these are going to have any kind of meaningful impact.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
8,463
7,684
136
Hopefully, the new Presidential directive that is aimed at patent trolls alleviates the need for innovators to defend themselves in court by filing lawsuits.

I don't think the directives will apply in this case. It's more of a squabble over licensing for FRAND patents. Basically Samsung has to license them to Apple, but they're both just dickering over the price and claiming that the other party is being unreasonable.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Lord Job's thermonuclear directive bears fruit.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
I don't think the directives will apply in this case. It's more of a squabble over licensing for FRAND patents. Basically Samsung has to license them to Apple, but they're both just dickering over the price and claiming that the other party is being unreasonable.

This.

Who here thinks Apple isn't going to appeal this to the courts?
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
22,061
881
126
Good. I think both sides should abandon all suits and start from scratch. If not then screw apple. I would love them to get knocked down a peg and STFU already.
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,210
2,551
136
I believe these are the same patents that has gotten Samsung in hot water. Currently Samsung is being investigated by the European Commission, the US Dept. of Justice, and Korean antitrust authority over abuse of these patents. Ooopps..

Either way, watch Apple appeal, the effect will be zero for now except lawyers on both sides get richer and consumers ultimately pay the price. The current federal government isn't looking too kindly on patent abuse so Apple will find sympathetic ears. Though this cuts both ways where Apple may find it much more difficult in obtaining any bans on Samsung products.

Either way, I'm kind of tired of the whole saga.