Apple Mobile Sales Ban Ruling Exposed: Qualcomm provides 300 million guarantees

category:Global
 Apple Mobile Sales Ban Ruling Exposed: Qualcomm provides 300 million guarantees


On December 11, a photograph of a ruling seen by Pengchao journalists showed that the four Apple subsidiaries that Qualcomm sued were Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Apple Electronic Products Trading (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Apple Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and Apple Electronic Products Trading (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Fuzhou Taihe Branch.

The case was filed on November 15, 2017. On July 10, 2018, Qualcomm filed an application with Fuzhou Intermediate Court to order the defendant to stop infringing patent rights first and request that seven mobile phone products from the infringing products of Apples four subsidiaries, the iPhone6S to the iPhoneX, be stopped.

The ruling dated Nov. 30, 2018 shows that Qualcomm first provided the Fuzhou Intermediate Court with a copy of the patent register of Motion Card Metaphor in Computing Device, confirming that Qualcomm is the holder of the patent and that the patent is currently in force. Secondly, Qualcomm also mentioned a series of notarial certificates, proving that the four Apple companies imported, promised to sell and sell suspected infringement products such as the iPhone 6s, the iPhone 6S Plus, the iPhone 7, the iPhone 7Plus, the iPhone 8, the iPhone 8Plus and the iPhone X. Thirdly, Qualcomm submitted a series of appraisal opinions to Fuzhou Intermediate Court from the National Institute of Industry, Information and Security, proving that the corresponding technical features of the technical scheme adopted by the aforementioned iPhone model are the same as those of the patent technology of Qualcomm. This point has also been recognized by the court.

According to an official statement from Qualcomm on the evening of Dec. 10, the patents involved in the case enable 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. Both are software patents.

In response to the courts temporary sales ban, Apple has said that the temporary ban involves products loaded with iOS 10 and 11 operating systems, and the ban does not include the latest operating system, iOS 12s iPhone. But the ruling did not mention the operating system for the iPhone family.

Qualcomm has proposed that if Apples infringement is not stopped in time, it will cause problems such as the amount of subsequent infringement compensation is difficult to calculate. In addition, the new Apple mobile phone listing will further expand Qualcomms losses. ?

The court held that, after examination, the existing evidence submitted by Qualcomm to the court could prove that the four Apple companies were suspected of patent application for production and business purposes without the permission of the obligee. The four companies have the possibility of infringing patent rights or helping infringement. In its written application, Qualcomm declared that the above-mentioned actions could cause irreparable damage to the legitimate rights and interests of patentees if not stopped in time.

Qualcomm also believes that Apples infringement will undermine the competitiveness of other mobile phone manufacturers that have established licensing relationships with the company in the Chinese market. Qualcomm has provided 300 million yuan of guarantee for this purpose, and has borne 5,000 yuan of case application fee.

It is noteworthy that Qualcomm has stated that the ruling does not apply to the honeycomb products manufactured by Heshuo United Technologies Co., Ltd. commissioned by Apple. That is to say, the banned Apple products do not include the iPhone manufactured by Heshuo.

Previously, in many intellectual property lawsuits between Qualcomm and Apple, Apple iPhone manufacturers such as Heshuo were also listed as defendants by Qualcomm.

According to the courts ruling, the execution of the ruling shall begin immediately after the service of the ruling, and its effect shall last until the date of the judgments entry into force. If the ruling is not satisfied, the ruling may be reconsidered once within 10 days from the date of receipt of the ruling, and the execution of the ruling shall not be suspended during the period of reconsideration.

On December 11, Apple said it had filed a review with the court on Monday, the first step in its appeal against the preliminary injunction.

You Yunting, a senior partner of Shanghai Dabang Law Firm, said that the court would hold a hearing soon after Apple submitted its reconsideration materials. It took a short time, half a day, two or three days for a long time.

The description of products falling into patent protection in the ruling should be true, but whether these patents themselves are stable is also crucial. You Yunting said that Apple may argue that some patents have expired, or that Apple may initiate an invalid procedure in the National Patent Review Board to try to invalidate these patents. But if the patents may be invalid, the court may also revoke the action preservation ruling, and Apple may show these patents to the court at the hearing.

Qualcomm and Apple did not comment on the Fuzhou Intermediate Court ruling.

Source: Peng Mei News Responsible Editor: Han Jiapeng_NN9841