Apple appealed the ban, Fuzhou Intermediate Court: No appeal, no second instance

category:Internet
 Apple appealed the ban, Fuzhou Intermediate Court: No appeal, no second instance


Wen / Yin Zhe

Qualcomms official website announced Wednesday that the Fuzhou Intermediate Peoples Court (hereinafter referred to as the Fuzhou Intermediate Court) ruled that Apple was banned from importing and selling some of its iPhones in China because of two patent infringements.

In response, Apple responded to CNBC the same day that it had filed an appeal in the hope of overturning the ban on the sale of the iPhone in China.

However, China Securities Daily quoted relevant people of Fuzhou Intermediate Court as saying on November that the patent lawsuit had issued a ruling last week. This ruling belongs to the category of patent injunction. It has only one instance, no appeal and no second instance. The ban will apply nationwide.

Up to the date of publication, Fuzhou Intermediate Court and China Judicial Documents Network have not published the ruling of the above prohibition.

Qualcomm official screenshot

In addition, a statement issued by Apple to the media last night (10 days) showed that Chinese consumers can still buy all models of the iPhone products. However, it did not specify the specific channel through which to purchase.

Apple also said, Another desperate move by Qualcomm to ban our products is that its violations are being investigated by regulators around the world. Qualcomm is proposing three patents they have never proposed before, including one that has expired. We will seek all legal avenues through the courts.

CNBC reported the same day that Apple believed it had not infringed on these patents and that the ban went beyond its scope. The company claims that these patents do not include the companys latest operating system installed on all new iPhones.

However, Don Rosenberg, Qualcomms chief legal adviser, said in a statement Monday that the ban was not aimed at operating systems installed on mobile phones.

As for the follow-up development of the incident, China Securities Daily quoted legal professionals as saying that after the ban came into effect, Qualcomm and Apple could go through the reconciliation process. After the two sides reconcile, they can apply to Fuzhou Intermediate Court for lifting the ban again.

Intellectual Property Court was established last September

Screenshot of Fujian Jinhua Official Website

It is worth mentioning that on July 3, the Fuzhou Intermediate Court ruled that Meguiar Semiconductor Sales (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. would immediately stop selling and importing more than 10 Crucial Intelligent Solid-State Hard Disks, memory bars and related chips, and delete advertisements, purchase links and other information on the above products from its website.

At the same time, it was ruled that Meiguang Semiconductor (Xian) Co., Ltd. would immediately stop manufacturing, selling and importing several memory strip products.

According to Fujian Court Network, on the morning of September 28, 2017, Fuzhou Intellectual Property Court was officially established.

On the same day, Lin Guanghai, Vice President of the Peoples Tribune of the Supreme Peoples Court, read out the Supreme Peoples Courts approval to set up special judicial organs in Fuzhou Intermediate Peoples Court and cross-regional jurisdiction of intellectual property cases. Yang Jun, Deputy Director of Fujian Provincial Editorial Office, read out the Provincial Editorial Offices statement on the establishment of intellectual property rights of Fuzhou Intermediat The verdict of the Trial Chamber.

Wang Ning, Standing Committee of Fujian Provincial Party Committee, Secretary of Fuzhou Municipal Party Committee, and Ma Xinlan, Secretary of Party Group and President of Fujian Higher Peoples Court attended the event and jointly unveiled the name of Fuzhou Intellectual Property Court.

Youve been with me for a long time.

According to China Securities Daily, disputes between Qualcomm and Apple have continued in the past two years.

In early 2017, Apple refused to pay the licensing fee for Qualcomm chips, and the two sides broke down. Three new models that Apple launched in September excluded Qualcomm chips and used Intel modem chips instead.

However, the vendor change caused Apples September launch of the new iPhone series to encounter a signal gate incident. A large number of users reported that the cellular network signal of the iPhone Xs was worse than before. Officials also said that this hardware defect could not be repaired through system upgrades.

In addition, in January 2017, Apple filed a lawsuit against Gao Tong in retaliation for its cooperation with the antitrust authorities and refused to refund the promised $1 billion patent royalties. Qualcomm subsequently denied Apples allegations and sued Apple in many countries for infringing its patents, accusing Apple of secretly instigating iPhone suppliers to default on the patent fees that Qualcomm should pay.

Apple alleges that Qualcomm abused its market dominance in licensing necessary patents for related communications standards and selling baseband chips, including:

1) Qualcomms standard and necessary patent licensing fees and licensing conditions to Apple are too high;

2) Refuse to license some standard technology implementers;

3) Limit Apples use of products/services it provides or licenses Huaihe to use;

4) Other bundling acts and unreasonable trading conditions in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 1, item 5, of the Anti-monopoly Law;

5) Implementing differential treatment to Apple.

In its April filing, Qualcomm alleged the following actions by Apple:

1) Violating the agreement with Qualcomm and distorting the content of the agreement and negotiation with Qualcomm;

2) interfere with the long-term agreement between Qualcomm and Qualcomm licensees who make Apples iPhone and iPad;

3) By misinterpreting facts and providing false statements, regulators are encouraged to launch attacks on Qualcomms business in different parts of the world.

4) Choose not to fully use the performance of high-pass modem chip in its iPhone 7 mobile phone, distort the performance differences between different iPhone phones with high-pass modem and other suppliersmodems;

5) Threatening Qualcomm and trying to prevent it from making public comparisons about the outstanding performance of the iPhone phones with Qualcomm products.

In addition, Qualcomm has filed more than 50 lawsuits in 16 jurisdictions in six different countries.

Qualcomm said in the statement that judicial bodies in China and other jurisdictions around the world are currently hearing similar relief claims against Apple for infringement of other Qualcomm patents.

Qualcomm holds a large number of essential patents related to 3G (WCDMA and CDMA2000) and 4G (LTE) wireless communication standards. Patent licensing is one of its main sources of revenue.

It is worth mentioning that on February 10, 2015, Qualcomm was fined more than 6 billion yuan ($975 million) by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) for alleged abuse of its monopoly position and was asked to rectify it.

Source: Responsible Editor of Observer: Qiao Junjing_NBJ11279