Qualcomm has launched 24 patent lawsuits against Apple, and the iPhone XS has been added.

category:Internet click:412
 Qualcomm has launched 24 patent lawsuits against Apple, and the iPhone XS has been added.


The dispute between Qualcomm and Apple has not been eased yet, the Securities Times e reported on December 20.

On Dec. 20, Jiang Hongyi, a lawyer of Beijing Liande Law Firm and a litigation agent of Qualcomm in Fuzhou Intermediate Court case, told e company reporters that Apples attempt to push an upgraded version of IOS to users could not evade the courts injunction. Apples continued sales ban involving seven mobile phone products is a violation of Chinas civil procedure law and criminal law.

Jiang Hongyi also said that Qualcomm has launched 24 patent infringement lawsuits against Apple in the Chinese market. At present, in some lawsuits, Qualcomm has added three new iPhone products released by Apple to the lawsuit. Meanwhile, Qualcomm has the right to use the two patents involved in the ban to prosecute the new model of the iPhone.

Apple told e that there was no latest response after the December 14 response.

Qualcomm: Apple System Upgrade Cant Evade Bans

Looking back at the lawsuit between Qualcomm and Apple, Qualcomm announced on the evening of Dec. 10 that the Fuzhou Intermediate Peoples Court of China had issued a preliminary injunction banning the import and sale of seven iPhones from the 6S to the X in the Chinese market, because the court held that Apple infringed on two software patents of Qualcomm.

These two patents mainly relate to the patents involved in the case, which 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.

Apple did not offload related mobile phone products in accordance with the ban, and its sales in the Chinese market did not suffer any resistance. Apple responded to the ban on December 10 by saying that Chinese consumers could still buy all models of the iPhone.

On Dec. 14, Apple responded to Company E by saying, After the courts ruling, we immediately took measures to ensure that we understand and comply with the ruling of Fuzhou Court. Based on the model of the iPhone we currently offer in China, we believe in our compliance. Although the two patents in this case only cover non-major mobile phone functions, we will issue a software update for Chinese iPhone users early next week to address any possible concerns about our compliance.

On December 17, Apple pushed an update to its iPhone software. This version fixes eSIM and cellular network connection bugs. In addition, the interaction mode of application exit has been changed. Apple seems to be trying to get rid of the embargo in China through this tactic.

Qualcomm believes that Apples practices have no impact on the ban.

Jiang Hongyi told e company reporters that Apples statement is not valid. First, the ban made by Fuzhou Intermediate Court is valid. If the ban is valid or unchanged, Apple must implement it in full accordance with the ban. Secondly, the court injunction is directed at the model of the iPhone phone, which has nothing to do with the IOS system. Apples response to the media to evade the injunction by upgrading the IOS system is totally against the requirements of the injunction.

Jiang Hongyi further explained: Apple recently pushed software updates to users, which has nothing to do with the ban, because the software updates are aimed at the iPhone products that consumers have purchased and used, which are not the target of the ban. The ban applies to just-completed mobile phones on Apples factory production line or to seven models of mobile phones on sale in Apples retail stores. After updating Apples push software, we notarized Apples official retail stores to buy the Apple phones that were prohibited from selling in the ban, and found that the version of the IOS system on board was still infringed.

Both companies applied to the court.

In response to an interview with E, Apple said it had filed an application for reconsideration with Fuzhou Court on December 14 to clarify and reconsider their decision.

Jiang Hongyi said that, according to the law, reconsideration can not affect the enforcement of the ban. And we note that the courts application for reconsideration transmitted to us by Apple did not mention the reasons for the reconsideration related to the operating system version.

At present, Apple is continuing to sell infringed products, which is a refusal to comply with the ban, and it needs to bear the corresponding legal responsibility. Including the corresponding liabilities of fines and detention in the Civil Procedure Law, as well as the provisions of the Criminal Law on the crime of refusing to perform the judgment. Qualcomm has filed an application for enforcement with Fuzhou Intermediate Court. Qualcomm believes that the court will stop Apples illegal activities in accordance with the law.

The Fuzhou Intermediate Court has not yet made a further decision and response to Apples application for reconsideration and Qualcomms application for enforcing the ban, and whether Apple can avoid the prohibition of related products through system upgrade.

Details of the case show that the courts ruling was executed against four Chinese subsidiaries of Apple. On December 6, Fuzhou Intermediate Court sent out the prohibition legal documents. Qualcomm received the legal documents on December 7. On December 12, it informed the court that only one Apple subsidiary had signed the documents and the other three subsidiaries refused to sign them. Afterwards, Fuzhou Intermediate Court called three main companies to request the signature of legal documents and made a second delivery.

Jiang Hongyi said: Apple should not refuse to accept legal documents if it operates in accordance with what they call respect for Chinese law and compliance. We believe that they should consciously implement the judgment documents in accordance with Chinese law, rather than waiting for the court to take enforcement measures.

Qualcomm is seeking to expand the scope of the ban. Qualcomm said it had launched 24 patent infringement lawsuits against Apple in the Chinese market. At present, Qualcomm has added three new iPhone products released by Apple to the lawsuit in some lawsuits. However, it is inconvenient to disclose more information about cases still in litigation. Reporters from company e contacted the head of Apple about the latest case, who said there was no further response. Professor Li Xiaowei, Intellectual Property Office of Suzhou University, told reporters of E Company that the patent war between Qualcomm and Apple originated from the challenge that Apple launched to the charging mode of Qualcomm. This lawsuit will have a strong guiding significance for the licensing mode of the future telecommunications industry, and similar lawsuits of mobile phone manufacturers in China will also be affected by the outcome of this case. Although the two American companies are tit-for-tat, they have an inseparable impact on Chinas social and public interests. Source: Responsible Editor of Securities Times Network: Wang Fengzhi_NT2541

Qualcomm is seeking to expand the scope of the ban. Qualcomm said it had launched 24 patent infringement lawsuits against Apple in the Chinese market. At present, Qualcomm has added three new iPhone products released by Apple to the lawsuit in some lawsuits. However, it is inconvenient to disclose more information about cases still in litigation.

Reporters from company e contacted the head of Apple about the latest case, who said there was no further response.

Professor Li Xiaowei, Intellectual Property Office of Suzhou University, told reporters of E Company that the patent war between Qualcomm and Apple originated from the challenge that Apple launched to the charging mode of Qualcomm. This lawsuit will have a strong guiding significance for the licensing mode of the future telecommunications industry, and similar lawsuits of mobile phone manufacturers in China will also be affected by the outcome of this case. Although the two American companies are tit-for-tat, they have an inseparable impact on Chinas social and public interests.