or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC delays determination in Samsung patent row against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ITC delays determination in Samsung patent row against Apple

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
On the day it was due to issue a final determination on a Samsung patent suit leveraged against Apple, the US International Trade Commission pushed back the deadline to June 4, delaying what could be a significant decision for issues relating to FRAND licensing.

ITC


Friday's extension is the second such delay for the determination, which will be the final ruling on a case involving Samsung's declared standard essential patents for UMTS cellular communications.

The Korean company first accused Apple of infringing on its patents in June 2011, seeking an embargo on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. It was later discovered that only older iOS devices would be affected by an ITC ban, as Apple is a third-party beneficiary of an existing Samsung licensing agreement for certain Qualcomm baseband chips, which Apple started using with the iPhone 4.

In September of 2012, ITC Administrative Law Judge James Gildea issued an initial determination clearing Apple of infringement, but the trade body chose to review the decision in November. The full Commission was slated to issue a ruling in March, but delayed judgment to May 31.

post #2 of 28

So what's the problem? Too few people to preside over cases? Too many cases? How about rating the cases on a scale of importance and actually getting to the important ones?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #3 of 28

I don't know why we even bother to pay these people....

post #4 of 28
Must be a misprint. It says Sammy was suing Apple. We all know only Apple files lawsuits. /s

@TS who gets to decide what's important.
post #5 of 28
Here is the thing. Like TS said, there is a problem (I vote for too much of these cases). It also sounds like a 'win' for Apple does exactly nothing. Same thing if Samsung 'wins' since it appears these products are no longer made.

Glad all these highly paid lawyers got paid, though.
post #6 of 28
It's not the fact that the devices are no longer made that is important here. It's the fact that the F and R in FRAND stand for Fair and Reasonable. If you want your patents to be included in a standard (effectively forcing everyone to use them), you must not be able to ban their use in an arbitrary and self serving manner. This is a strategy too often executed and it must be stopped.

Industry-wide acceptance as a standard should entail industry-wide publication and application of patent conditions.

I do not understand how this cannot be a slam-dunk decision for the ITC.
post #7 of 28
Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.

In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/1/13 at 6:05am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.

In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.

 

A two business day delay in coming out with their decision means Apple is likely to be found to have infringed?  I don't get that.  And you know this how?

 

It's like your inside the rooms where they're deliberating with all this inside knowledge you seem to have about the decisions and ramifications of those decisions that they're dealing with.  Why don't you just hook us up with the recordings or video.  No reason to hold out on us now is there?

post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

A two business day delay in coming out with their decision means Apple is likely to be found to have infringed?  I don't get that.  And you know this how?

It's like your inside the rooms where they're deliberating with all this inside knowledge you seem to have about the decisions and ramifications of those decisions that they're dealing with.  Why don't you just hook us up with the recordings or video.  No reason to hold out on us now is there?

It fits his worldview that Apple infringes on poor helpless little companies like Samsung. No further evidence need be presented. Apple is evil.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.

In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.

 

Classic attempt at disinformation from GG. You can't be "guilty of infringement" in a meaningful sense with SE/FRAND patents. Of course anyone following the standard will be using the "inventions" described in these patents, that's more or less a tautology. The issues are a) can SE/FRAND patents be used to enjoin products in any instance, and b) if they can, was FRAND licensing actually offered and refused. Those are the issues here. Not whether, "Apple is likely guilty of infringement."

 

In a nutshell, Samsung will be about as successful in this line of attack as in other instances of FRAND patent abuse, which is turning out to be a bag of hurt for Samsung, Motorola, Google, et al., worldwide.

 

Frankly, I have more respect for trolls than people like GG. They at least deserve compassion for the mental illness that compels them to engage in antisocial behavior. GG deserves none.

post #11 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.

In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.

GG,

 

You always seem to take the anti-Apple slant to things without talking about the negative impact on any other parties. Also, I am not sure how you come your opinion based on the information presented. You would have to explain your opinion better to not come off as purely trolling.

 

My basis of understanding of FRAND is this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing

 

Based on my what I am reading, as a reasonable person, seeing what has happened in Europe with Mot/Goog Frand patents, the more likely scenario is that Samsung tried to apply unfair and unreasonable fees as applied to this/these patents to try to stick it to Apple.  Or maybe Samsung tried to double dip on this patent, licensing it to the chip company so people who bought the chip should be covered in the ability to use the patent but trying to collect an extra fee from Apple, unreasonably. This second scenario is more likely since Apple was cleared of infringement on first look by the ITC judge. It is likely that Samsung then threw something else into the fray to get the ITC to review the decision. Not being an attorney and not being a patent attorney, this is all speculation on my part. An issue for Samsung is that if they are trying to collect an unreasonable fee, could they be sanctioned and fined by the ITC for this?

 

Reason for the additional delay could be several besides finding Apple guilty of infringement. Some new documents related to the case came to the commission late. Maybe the sides are close to an agreement that would put off any reason for the ITC to rule. Or maybe they are trying to decide how much to fine Samsung if they think they were trying to double dip. A hefty fine could put a stop to companies trying to double dip or hold up other companies for using FRAND patents.

 

At least this is my non lawyer interpretation of all of this. YMMV. Apple isn't always right but they aren't usually always wrong.

post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

A two business day delay in coming out with their decision means Apple is likely to be found to have infringed?  I don't get that.  And you know this how?

It's like your inside the rooms where they're deliberating with all this inside knowledge you seem to have about the decisions and ramifications of those decisions that they're dealing with.  Why don't you just hook us up with the recordings or video.  No reason to hold out on us now is there?

It does seem like magic doesn't it? Almost as if I teleported my way into the judge's chambers. . .

Or perhaps I just did a little background reading and research before commenting on the article. You should try it. The obvious first stop for some here would be FossPatents since Florian was probably the source for the AI article.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/05/itc-extends-target-date-for-samsung.html

Your second stop if you have any real interest in knowing what's going on is the ITC themselves. Visit edis.usitc.gov and you can register to view ITC documents for yourself. The relevant case number is 337-794

EDIT: To be perfectly clear I'm no fan of Samsung's business practices in case some regular here missed the last dozen times I've complained about Samsung. It is what it is tho. The likely reason for the ITC's delay is how exactly to respond to Apple's infringement of Samsung's IP according to court-watchers. For a handful of posters to jump in to claim I'm wrong is pretty silly when they didn't even bother to check for themselves.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/1/13 at 9:29am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 28
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
@TS who gets to decide what's important.

 

A panel of people who actually understand the case, apparently unlike the people who preside over them.


Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post
It also sounds like a 'win' for Apple does exactly nothing.

 

That's the greatest crime. Sure, Apple can "lose" thanks to complete idiots, but when they win you feel as though they should have lost because absolutely nothing happens. 


Samsung's mobile division needs shut down, period. Who cares what happens to the people? But will that happen? Not unless we find e-mails or letters where they talk about what they've done outright.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

Here is the thing. Like TS said, there is a problem (I vote for too much of these cases). It also sounds like a 'win' for Apple does exactly nothing. Same thing if Samsung 'wins' since it appears these products are no longer made.

Glad all these highly paid lawyers got paid, though.

 

Thing is this this case it's not a win kind of a situation. It's an SEP so Apple should have gotten a license because Samsung was required to license it. But then again perhaps the terms weren't, in Apple's opinion, fair and reasonable. So even if Samsung wins all they might get is the money they asked for originally. No one is keen to use injunctions when SEP are involved whether the products are still around or not. On the flip, if Apple wins they may still have to pay just at less than what Samsung wanted (but is determined by ITC to be fair)

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Thing is this this case it's not a win kind of a situation. It's an SEP so Apple should have gotten a license because Samsung was required to license it. But then again perhaps the terms weren't, in Apple's opinion, fair and reasonable. So even if Samsung wins all they might get is the money they asked for originally. No one is keen to use injunctions when SEP are involved whether the products are still around or not. On the flip, if Apple wins they may still have to pay just at less than what Samsung wanted (but is determined by ITC to be fair)

The ITC doesn't have the power to order a monetary award. If they identify IP infringement the only cure available to them is an injunction. In this case the economic harm to Apple would be none for the most part anyway. The case took so long to meander thru the ITC that the Apple products subject to an import ban are set to retire anyway. The only thing left besides "bragging rights" is an indication of whether SEP holders can avail themselves of ITC courts in the future and if so under what scenarios. That's the important part.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 28
By the time the ITC makes a ruling the impact on Samsung will be minimal. Unfortunately the system stinks and needs to be revamped
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Classic attempt at disinformation from GG. You can't be "guilty of infringement" in a meaningful sense with SE/FRAND patents. Of course anyone following the standard will be using the "inventions" described in these patents, that's more or less a tautology. The issues are a) can SE/FRAND patents be used to enjoin products in any instance, and b) if they can, was FRAND licensing actually offered and refused. Those are the issues here. Not whether, "Apple is likely guilty of infringement."

 

In a nutshell, Samsung will be about as successful in this line of attack as in other instances of FRAND patent abuse, which is turning out to be a bag of hurt for Samsung, Motorola, Google, et al., worldwide.

 

Frankly, I have more respect for trolls than people like GG. They at least deserve compassion for the mental illness that compels them to engage in antisocial behavior. GG deserves none.

 

I highly doubt that ITC would end up saying 'we cannot enjoin products infringing on SEP' because then they are pretty much saying 'we don't have power to do a shit about SEP.'

 

Also, yes you can be guilty of infringement for SEP in a "meaningful sense."  Not paying royalty for a patent you are using is an infringement, period.  Only difference for SEP is, as you probably already know, that patentee must license out at "reasonable" terms.

 

Edit.  Reading through what GG said, I think he has some valid points but perhaps concluding that ITC already found Apple to be liable and for that they delayed the ruling for 2 days seems tenuous.


Edited by Loptimist - 6/1/13 at 9:34am
post #18 of 28
ITC:
Judge #1: "Guys, do we really have to make a decision here? All of this publicity is actually pretty cool. We're ITC for God's sake! How many times to do we get to make a decision that really makes a difference?!"
Judge #2: "I agree... Chicks dig me."
Judge #3: "Hey, let's throw in one more delay!"
Judge #4: "Yeah, just one more delay. Let's milk this sucker!"
Judge #1: "Okay, but do you guys think we should read the documentation on the case, at least?"
Judge #2: "Nah, we'll just read AppleInsider, pick out the biggest moron, and rule against his comments."
Edited by AdhocHavoc - 6/1/13 at 2:55pm
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apparently other posters are unaware that Apple is likely guilty of infringement. If not the ITC wouldn't be asking these questions at this stage. The problem the ITC is having now is whether to issue an injunction despite the recent pressure from other agencies not to.


In a nutshell the ITC already knows Apple is guilty but now what are they gonna do about it? It sets the stage for several other cases to come. If they don't issue an injunction on some Apple products they become a toothless tiger is some respects since that's the only cure they can offer. On the other hand if they do order one they're inviting an intervention and perhaps rewrite of the section 337 rules that gave them that power in the first place.

A two business day delay in coming out with their decision means Apple is likely to be found to have infringed?  I don't get that.  And you know this how?

It's like your inside the rooms where they're deliberating with all this inside knowledge you seem to have about the decisions and ramifications of those decisions that they're dealing with.  Why don't you just hook us up with the recordings or video.  No reason to hold out on us now is there?

He's just relentlessly anti-Apple. In the most passive-aggressive way.

Just ignore him.....

Add: Oops, I see it's too late.
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


He's just relentlessly anti-Apple. In the most passive-aggressive way.

Just ignore him.....

Add: Oops, I see it's too late.

 

The problem with propaganda is that, even though it's nine parts lies, with a dash of truth thrown in to make it seem plausible, if it isn't countered, people start to believe it, simply from repetition. So, yes, although it would be nice to be able to just ignore this nonsense, and actually be able to have meaningful discussions, as long as people are paid to come here (along with the many, transient fools who stop by from time to time) and spread disinformation, the choices are a) ignore them and allow them to shape people's views of reality or b) waste time and opportunity to counter their propaganda. It's unfortunately a sad fact of life that people like GG, on the pretense of "just providing information", make it more and more difficult to actually have rational, meaningful discussion. 

post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

 

I highly doubt that ITC would end up saying 'we cannot enjoin products infringing on SEP' because then they are pretty much saying 'we don't have power to do a shit about SEP.'

 

Also, yes you can be guilty of infringement for SEP in a "meaningful sense."  Not paying royalty for a patent you are using is an infringement, period.  Only difference for SEP is, as you probably already know, that patentee must license out at "reasonable" terms.

 

Edit.  Reading through what GG said, I think he has some valid points but perhaps concluding that ITC already found Apple to be liable and for that they delayed the ruling for 2 days seems tenuous.

 

And you're another one. And, no, the difference for SEP is that to implement the standard, you must use the patented "invention". That's the point, and we all know that all these "controversies" are from companies like Samsung and Google trying to either "double-dip" or violating their FRAND obligations. No one, including Apple, is refusing to license these patents under FRAND terms, but FRAND terms, in violation of the commitments made, aren't being offered by these companies. Instead, they are reneging on their promises and trying to use them as offensive weapons.

 

What GG and you have said is complete and utter nonsense.

post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

He's just relentlessly anti-Apple. In the most passive-aggressive way.

Just ignore him.....

Add: Oops, I see it's too late.

The idea that Apple is apparently guilty of infringement is explained by Mueller in his blog article I linked earlier.
"The nature of the questions and the fact that they were asked at such a late procedural stage indicated that the ITC has most probably identified an (Apple) infringement of the '348 patent."

"The commercial impact of an exclusion order (i.e., import ban) on Apple would be rather limited. Samsung has already stated affirmatively that it's not accusing Apple products incorporating a Qualcomm baseband chip but only older iPhones and iPads. The iPhone 4S was Apple's first Qualcomm-based handset."

"The most interesting question is what position the ITC will take on FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents (SEPs). In the build-up to the just-postponed decision, four U.S. Senators and four U.S. Representatives had written letters to the ITC to reiterate lawmakers' concern over the anticompetitive and anti-innovative implications of import bans over FRAND-pledged SEPs."

Is he anti-Apple? Hardly. Whether you like Apple or don't even know who they are doesn't change whatever the ITC announces on the 5th. We'll see soon enough what it is. Probably the only remaining issue of importance is some indication of how or even whether at all the ITC will entertain future filings that claim IP infringement of SEP's.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/1/13 at 1:36pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

And you're another one. And, no, the difference for SEP is that to implement the standard, you must use the patented "invention". That's the point, and we all know that all these "controversies" are from companies like Samsung and Google trying to either "double-dip" or violating their FRAND obligations. No one, including Apple, is refusing to license these patents under FRAND terms, but FRAND terms, in violation of the commitments made, aren't being offered by these companies. Instead, they are reneging on their promises and trying to use them as offensive weapons.

 

What GG and you have said is complete and utter nonsense.

Please, don't call something nonsense just because you cannot understand a rather simple legal concept properly.

SEP is still a patent that a licensee must pay royalty.  If he does not, he infringes.  It is that simple.  

 

You keep saying just because everyone has to use a patent because it is standard essential that no one can infringe on a SEP in a meaningful way.  Think twice.  The fact that you have to use the invention to conform to a standard does not give you any legal rights to use it without paying a reasonable royalty.

 

Also, what are you, a judge?  The contentions are (1) whether Samsung abused its SEP and (2) if it did not whether Apple refused to license under FRAND terms.  And you seem to already know the answers to the questions presented.  While I do think ITC might say Samsung abused its SEP, you just have no authority to say that Apple had any intention to do it right and Samsung did not offer FRAND terms as of now.  If ITC says so, then cite it.  But for the time being, stop the "propaganda."

 

Come on.  


Edited by Loptimist - 6/1/13 at 3:47pm
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No one, including Apple, is refusing to license these patents under FRAND terms, but FRAND terms, in violation of the commitments made, aren't being offered by these companies.

 

According to Apple, that is.

 

Apple did refuse a judge's offer to set FRAND terms between it and Motorola. Instead, Apple wanted to decide what the maximum FRAND price could be, something it has no right to do.

 

Apple also wants to be treated special, and not pay licenses calculated by device price, like every other ETSI licensee has done for two decades.  (Higher priced/ profit devices subsidize lower priced / very low profit devices, in order to make the technology available to all.)

 

So while Apple might have some legitimate complaints about other companies trying to use their FRAND patents as weapons, they are not just an innocent company wanting to play by the rules.  They want to change the rules.

post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


The idea that Apple is apparently guilty of infringement is explained by Mueller in his blog article I linked earlier.
"The nature of the questions and the fact that they were asked at such a late procedural stage indicated that the ITC has most probably identified an (Apple) infringement of the '348 patent."

"The commercial impact of an exclusion order (i.e., import ban) on Apple would be rather limited. Samsung has already stated affirmatively that it's not accusing Apple products incorporating a Qualcomm baseband chip but only older iPhones and iPads. The iPhone 4S was Apple's first Qualcomm-based handset."

"The most interesting question is what position the ITC will take on FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents (SEPs). In the build-up to the just-postponed decision, four U.S. Senators and four U.S. Representatives had written letters to the ITC to reiterate lawmakers' concern over the anticompetitive and anti-innovative implications of import bans over FRAND-pledged SEPs."

Is he anti-Apple? Hardly. Whether you like Apple or don't even know who they are doesn't change whatever the ITC announces on the 5th. We'll see soon enough what it is. Probably the only remaining issue of importance is some indication of how or even whether at all the ITC will entertain future filings that claim IP infringement of SEP's.

 

It's funny how one week GG will be on here bashing Mueller and the next citing him. 

post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

According to Apple, that is.

 

Apple did refuse a judge's offer to set FRAND terms between it and Motorola. Instead, Apple wanted to decide what the maximum FRAND price could be, something it has no right to do.

 

Apple also wants to be treated special, and not pay licenses calculated by device price, like every other ETSI licensee has done for two decades.  (Higher priced/ profit devices subsidize lower priced / very low profit devices, in order to make the technology available to all.)

 

So while Apple might have some legitimate complaints about other companies trying to use their FRAND patents as weapons, they are not just an innocent company wanting to play by the rules.  They want to change the rules.

 

More nonsense from the usual purveyors of falsehood. Google/Samsung's entire strategy has to date been based on abuse of FRAND patents, and there's nothing different about that here.

post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

More nonsense from the usual purveyors of falsehood. Google/Samsung's entire strategy has to date been based on abuse of FRAND patents, and there's nothing different about that here.


Are you referring to the opinion portion or the reference to the judge's order? The judge was very detailed in her reasoning. I'm not going to argue about their broader goals as it's a pointless argument to me.

 

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2012110322254380#Order

Quote:

Apple’s allegations of “irreparable harm” have at least two problems. The first problem is that Apple’s request for specific performance in the form of court declaration of a FRAND rate without any obligation by Apple to accept the rate would not prevent Motorola from suing Apple for patent infringement and requesting injunctive relief. In other words, if Apple refuses to be bound by the rate determined by the court, Motorola could continue to sue Apple for patent infringement and request injunctive relief.

The second problem is that Apple has provided no reason why its injuries would not be remedied by an award of money damages. It is undisputed that Motorola has failed to obtain any exclusion order or permanent injunction against Apple in the related patent infringement proceedings. Further, although Apple suggests that it will continue to face threats of permanent injunction or exclusionary orders related to Motorola’s standards-essential patents, it is not clear why this would be so if this court had resolved Apple’s claim for money damages in its favor. If Apple had been awarded money damages in this case, the court would have necessarily determined that Motorola breached a contract by failing to offer Apple a FRAND rate. Under

4

such circumstances, Apple would have an obvious defense in any future proceeding in which Motorola sought an injunction or exclusionary order against Apple.

post #28 of 28
Vindicated Exactly as i said it would likely be. Expecting an apology from members who decided personal attacks were proper is too much to expect of course.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ITC delays determination in Samsung patent row against Apple