Wednesday, May 18, 2016

wins ITC ruling, some devices to receive US import ban

by CNETAccording to several reports fresh off the wire, the International Trade Commission has just ruled in favour of in the company’s long-running attempt to get the courts to implement a sales ban on certain infringing devices. The case stems back to a countersuit that filed in 2011 following a lawsuit launched by that claimed several device’s infringed its patents.Fosspatents reports:Today the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC) handed down its final ruling on ’s July2011 complaintagainst . An import ban has been ordered and will take effect at the end of the 60-day Presidential review period.The ITC found that does indeed infringe on the two patents asserted in the original case, including one often referred to as the “Steve Jobs” patent that covers touch screen ftures and another that detects when a hdset or other device is plugged into an iPhone.The news follows the Obama administration’sdecision to veto an ITC import banon certain iPhone and iPad models that won in a separate case. While today’s decision will have to undergo a 60-day Presidential review, the ultimate impact of the ban will depend on the workarounds that implements in the mntime. Fosspatents also notes it would have a much more difficult time obtaining a presidential veto due to the circumstances of the case:Even though there may be expectations in South Kor that should benefit from a Presidential veto only because just won one last Saturday, “me too” doesn’t make sense here because standard-essential patents (SEPs) like the one over which the ITC wanted to grant an exclusion order come with FRAND (fair, rsonable and non-discriminatory) licensing obligations and can’t be worked around without prohibitive switching costs, while non-SEPs are traditional exclusionary rights and, most importantly, can be worked around. In fact, presented to the ITC products that it said (and Judge Pender agreed) don’t infringe. If legality is so rdily available, a veto isn’t warranted.Today also attemptedto convince a separate court to overturn a decision that let continue to sell products infringing on iPhone-related patents following a high-profile case last yr that awarded close to $1B in damages. A decision in that case isn’t expected for a few months and a new trial regarding some of the original damages is set for November.

No comments:

Post a Comment