Qualcomm and Apple interpreted the temporary ban quite differently. Apple said Chinese consumers could still buy all models of the iPhone.
Peng Mei News (www.thepaper.cn) informed a person familiar with the Fujian court system that Qualcomm and Apples patent lawsuit cases are being heard, and that interim injunction in lawsuit is only a temporary compulsory measure in the process of lawsuit, not a case judgment.
Why do two American companies come to Fuzhou to fight a lawsuit? According to the above-mentioned insiders, according to relevant laws, intellectual property litigation can be accepted in all product sales places. Fuzhou certainly has Apple phones to sell, which meets the conditions for filing a case. Qualcomm chose to sue in Fuzhou, and Fuzhou Intermediate Court can accept the case. At the same time, the interim injunction made by Fuzhou Intermediate Court applies to the whole country.
Liang Honggang, a lawyer of Beijing Tiandou Law Firm, said in an interview with Peng Mei News that the temporary injunction refers to a compulsory measure issued by the court at the request of the obligee to compel the infringer to temporarily stop the infringement. The purpose of the compulsory measure issued by the court is to stop the imminent infringement.
Liang Honggang introduced that there is no specific standard for the court to make an interim injunction. Generally, several factors will be considered: first, whether the situation is urgent; second, whether the obligee has the possibility of winning the lawsuit; third, whether the obligee is facing irreparable losses. In addition, the interests of both parties should be balanced.
Lawyer Liang Honggang said that the former Good Voice of China trademark dispute case was also a civil ruling made by the court before the judgment, requiring relevant companies to immediately stop using registered trademarks and program names including Good Voice of China in the singing contest talent show. Later, Zhejiang Satellite Television wrote to the court, expressing that in order to safeguard the authority of the judiciary, Zhejiang Satellite Televisions Good Voice of China program was temporarily renamed New Song of China.
Peng Mei News noticed that the injunction in lawsuit also appeared in the dispute between Wang Laoji and Gardobo. The Yangcheng Evening News reported that on January 31, 2013, the Guangzhou Intermediate Peoples Court issued an injunction against Gardobao and other applicants, demanding that they immediately stop using Wang Laoji renamed Gardobao, the leading national sales of red tins of herbal tea renamed Gardobao or advertising slogans with the same or similar meaning.
Prohibitions in litigation are generally used with caution. A deputy secretary-general of the Intellectual Property Rights Committee of the National Bar Association, in an interview with the surging news, said that an injunction in a lawsuit was issued before the outcome of the case was reached, in case the case was lost, it might have an irreversible impact on the parties.
On the evening of Dec. 10, Apple responded that trying to ban Apple products was another desperate move by Qualcomm. The companys violations are being investigated by regulators around the world. Chinese consumers can still buy all models of the iPhone. Qualcomm is proposing three patents they have never proposed before, including one that has expired. We will seek all legal avenues through the courts.
Liang Honggang said that once the ban came into effect immediately, Apple could review the application for the ban, but it would not affect the implementation during the review period. Now that the ban has been imposed, Apples practice of importing, selling and promising to sell mobile phones in China may be considered illegal.
In response to the courts temporary sales ban, Apple has said that the temporary ban covers products loaded with iOS 10 and 11 operating systems, and does not include the latest operating system, iOS 12s iPhone.
According to the Fuzhou Intermediate Court ruling disclosed by First Finance and Economics, the ban does not mention the operating system of the iPhone series, but only the model of the product. Liang Honggang said that because the ban is only a zero-time safeguard measure, not a final judgment, it can not determine that Apple has infringed, nor can it judge whether the iPhone after upgrading to iOS 12 involves infringement.
Source: Peng Mei News Responsible Editor: Han Jiapeng_NN9841