Lawyers said that the ban on the sale of Apple mobile phones was effective throughout the country and that the review period would not affect its implementation.

category:Internet click:578
 Lawyers said that the ban on the sale of Apple mobile phones was effective throughout the country and that the review period would not affect its implementation.


What does Qualcomm, the US chip giant, mean for Apple when it applies for a ban on the sale of the iPhone in China?

On the evening of Dec. 10, Qualcomm announced that the Fujian Intermediate Peoples Court granted Qualcomm two interim injunctions against four Chinese subsidiaries of Apple, demanding that Apple immediately stop infringing on Qualcomms two patents, including importing, selling and promising to sell unauthorized products in China. The iPhone 6S, 6SPlus, 7, 7Plus, 8, 8Plus and X.

In response to the temporary injunction, Apple filed for review with the court on Monday, the first step in its appeal against the preliminary injunction. In addition, up to now, Apple products of all models are still sold normally in all channels.

According to reports, the patent involved in the case enables consumers to adjust and reset the size and appearance of photos, and manage applications through touch screens when browsing, searching and exiting applications on mobile phones.

Since the interim injunction judgment of Fujian Intermediate Court has not been disclosed, Qualcomm and Apple explain the impact of the injunction on themselves. But how effective is the ban? Whats the impact on Apple? Pengchao journalists interviewed lawyers in the field of intellectual property rights.

Lawyer Jin Weixia, partner of intellectual property team of Shanghai Huiye Law Firm, told reporters at Pengwei News (www.thepaper.cn) that the ban on sale is effective throughout the country. Once the injunction is served, it will be implemented immediately. The executed person will have a chance to reconsider. During the period of reconsideration, it should not affect the execution of the ruling.

If the result of the courts final judgment is different from that of the injunction in action, the injunction in action will be ineffective within the scope of the conflict between the injunction and the result of judgment. However, the reason why the injunction can be issued in litigation is usually based on the fact that the court is more likely to think that the infringement is justified and that the subsequent patentee is more likely to win in the infringement proceedings. Jin Weixias lawyer said.

However, if the ban is a judgment, then the ban is not immediately effective and still awaits the final hearing of the second instance. Therefore, the specific situation should be in accordance with the documents published by the court. Up to now, the interim ban of Fuzhou Intermediate Court has not been published.

The latest development is that Apple filed a request for reconsideration on Monday. Lawyer Jin Weixia introduced that after the application for reconsideration was accepted by the court, it did not stipulate that the court must make a ruling within a certain period of time. Sometimes it may last for a long time, and the possibility of successful reconsideration in such cases involving patent infringement of methods is not great.

Because it is difficult to judge the infringement of method patents. If such a ruling is to be made, then the court has basically a greater grasp, then it is unlikely to overturn the ruling by reconsideration in turn.

You Yunting, a senior partner of Shanghai Dabang Law Firm, accepted the surging news: The provisional injunction is theact preservation rulingin the Civil Procedure Law. If the court makes a ruling, the parties are obliged to enforce it, does it mean that upgrading the system can be avoided, and the wording of Apple remains to be discussed?

At present, there is not much information disclosed. It is not known whether there has been a hearing before the ruling. If the court has heard the opinions of both parties before the ruling and still makes such a ruling, the ruling will not change. If only one partys opinions have been heard before the ruling and the other partys opinions have not been heard, then the other party can do so after the ruling. Please reconsider. If possible, the previous ruling will be overturned. You Yunting said that the reconsideration may overturn three previous rulings, one is that the patent is invalid; the other is that the product has not fallen into the other partys protection; and the third is the highly controversial ruling.

According to Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law, if the parties are not satisfied with the ruling of preservation or prior execution, they may apply for reconsideration once. The execution of the ruling shall not be suspended during the period of reconsideration. You Yunting said that the interim injunction was supposed to be enforced after it was issued, but judging from previous cases, it was seldom enforced in the practice process. Enforcement requires court personnel to enforce, but in many cases the court did not do it.

Zhan Guang, a lawyer at Shanghai Zhengze Law Firm, also said that the ruling had come into force regardless of whether Apple applied for reconsideration or not, and that Apple should prohibit the sale of the corresponding products in accordance with the requirements of the ruling. Up to now, Chinese courts have given very few rulings on the ban, which is very cautious and serious.

By inputting two keywords of patent and pre-litigation injunction into the judgment documents online, 123 verdicts were obtained, of which 11 fully supported the issuance of pre-litigation injunction, accounting for 8.94%. There were 99 unsupported copies. Ninety-nine (80.5%) refused to issue a pre-litigation injunction.

However, there are views that the ban may have limited impact on Apple.

Because patents (involving infringement disputes) are mainly related to software, not core patents in communications, Apple can modify the software. It is likely that the final judgment has not yet come out, and Apples products have been adjusted to no longer involve infringement of the above-mentioned disputed patents. Jin Weixias lawyer said.

Lawyer Zhan Guang said that because Fuzhou court did not publish the full text of the ban, according to Apples news, the products involved in infringement are no longer infringed because the latest iOS12 system has been updated to avoid Qualcomms patents. If the statement is true, the products using the latest system can continue to be sold, otherwise, they should go ahead. Stop selling the infringed products.

Merchants Electronics also judged in a research paper released on December 11 that since Qualcomm sued Apple for patent infringement in Fuzhou Intermediate Court in November 2017, the lawsuit was mainly aimed at the old version of iOS11 system. At the same time, the three new iPhone devices released in 2018 are not included in the lawsuit. Apple can evade related patents by upgrading its system. However, it is also pointed out that the Fuzhou Intermediate Courts ban on sales is aimed at specific product models, and has nothing to do with the iOS version. According to CNBCs December 11 report, Don Rosenberg, Qualcomms legal adviser, said the ban was not aimed at operating systems loaded on mobile phones. As for how the ban was lifted, lawyer Jin Weixia introduced that there are usually two situations. One is that Apple applied for reconsideration and the reasons for the reconsideration are valid. The second is that Qualcomm and Apple reached a settlement. However, in the current situation, it is difficult for the two sides to shake hands and make peace. Source: Wang Fengzhi _NT2541

Merchants Electronics also judged in a research paper released on December 11 that since Qualcomm sued Apple for patent infringement in Fuzhou Intermediate Court in November 2017, the lawsuit was mainly aimed at the old version of iOS11 system. At the same time, the three new iPhone devices released in 2018 are not included in the lawsuit. Apple can evade related patents by upgrading its system.

However, it is also pointed out that the Fuzhou Intermediate Courts ban on sales is aimed at specific product models, and has nothing to do with the iOS version. According to CNBCs December 11 report, Don Rosenberg, Qualcomms legal adviser, said the ban was not aimed at operating systems loaded on mobile phones.

As for how the ban was lifted, lawyer Jin Weixia introduced that there are usually two situations. One is that Apple applied for reconsideration and the reasons for the reconsideration are valid. The second is that Qualcomm and Apple reached a settlement. However, in the current situation, it is difficult for the two sides to shake hands and make peace.