Samsung sought ITC ban would be limited to older iPhones and iPads, company admits

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a filing with the U.S. International Trade Commission, Samsung confirmed that its declared standard essential wireless patents only apply to older iOS devices due to hardware changes in more recent versions, meaning that a proposed ban on the products would be somewhat limited if enforced.

Samsung


As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Samsung is seeking a U.S. sales ban on AT&T versions of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G, as well as the iPad and iPad 2. While the new filing looks to extend the older model coverage to "other carriers," it admits that newer iPhones and iPads running a certain Qualcomm baseband chip would be excluded from the ban.

The Korean company is asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 regarding UMTS technologies, which are present in certain cellular-enabled iPhones and iPads using an Infineon-made communications chip. Newer cellular-connected iOS devices leverage Qualcomm silicon to which Samsung's assertions do not apply.

From Samsung's filing:
Based on Samsung's understanding, the current configurations of the iPhone 4 (CDMA version), iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2 (CDMA version), iPad (third and fourth generations) and iPad mini contain [REDACTED]. Accordingly, unless these devices are altered to incorporate [REDACTED], they would not be subject to an exclusion order or cease and desist order. Similarly, future devices incorporating [REDACTED] would not be subject to an exclusion order or cease and desist order.
With Apple not even offering the iPhone 3GS, 3G and first-generation iPad, that leaves only the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 as being possible liabilities if the ITC were to agree to Samsung's request. Further, given the current iOS device cycle, which discontinues first-party iPhone sales for versions over two years old, a sales ban may not even affect Apple's handset lineup.

Mueller believes the ITC is unlikely to issue a sales ban, but points out that if such action was taken, only low-end Apple devices and the company's after-sales service business would be affected. He also said that the normal delay period before an import ban takes effect would go further in lessening the blow to Apple's bottom line.

After announcing a delay to its final ruling, the ITC is now scheduled to hand down a decision on May 31.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Better hurry with that ban! A few more months and there will be none of those left except refurbs.
  • Reply 2 of 27
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,179member
    Considering all those products will be discontinued in a few months.. yeah.
  • Reply 3 of 27
    mechanicmechanic Posts: 805member
    Heck the iPad 3 is the cheaper one now anyway, and like was said here above the iPad 2 will drop off when the new iPad comes out this year and the 3 will be the really cheap one, same with the iPhone 4 its gone as soon as the 5S comes out so much ado about nothing lol seems like a huge waste of money for shamelessung but oh well if there stupid enough to pursue a ban on a FRAND patent then there stupid enough to blow money for nothing.
  • Reply 4 of 27
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    mechanic wrote: »
    Heck the iPad 3 is the cheaper one now anyway,

    Nope. The ipad3 was dropped for the 4. Those 'cheap 16 gb are iPad 2.

    That said, IF Samsung can get the ban, Apple can just switch to Qualcomm chips. If they haven't lready. Or Apple might pull out a patent exhaustion deal which shows Samsung was paid already and its game over

    Same with the iPhone 4
  • Reply 5 of 27


    For Samsung to win this one would be pretty ho-hum....sort of like kissing your own sister.

  • Reply 6 of 27
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    So the infringement is in someone else's chips which Apple uses. Seems like they are going after the wrong company! FK Samsung!
  • Reply 7 of 27
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post



    ... but oh well if there stupid enough to pursue a ban on a FRAND patent then there [sic] stupid enough to blow money for nothing.


     


     


    It's not "stupid" to pursue a FRAND related injunction with the ITC.  They exist specifically for that purpose.


     


    Unlike Federal courts, the ITC's sole power is import bans, so they issue them from time to time.


     


    That's why every company, Apple included, often runs to the ITC right away.  They're usually quicker than courts, and an import ban is great leverage for getting deals made.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post



    So the infringement is in someone else's chips which Apple uses. Seems like they are going after the wrong company! FK Samsung!


     


    In the telecom world, buying a chip doesn't necessarily buy the IP rights needed to make use of the chip.  Those are often separate, especially with newer chips that are multi-purpose.   You would not want to pay for LTE if you weren't using the LTE side, for example.


     


    Example:  Qualcomm charges Apple about $15 per chip.  Just for the chip.  Then Qualcomm charges another ~4% of the device's cost on top of that for patent royalties, depending on what radios are involved.

  • Reply 8 of 27
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member


    I hope it stops Apple selling the iPad 2. It was a winner in it's time, and I see why it was the one they chose to keep around to capture the low-end market, but there comes a point where having too many low end units in circulation encourages developers to not leverage the extra power in newer units, enabling competitors' tablets to catch up app-wise.

  • Reply 9 of 27
    joshajosha Posts: 901member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


    For Samsung to win this one would be pretty ho-hum....sort of like kissing your own sister.

     



    This ban sounds like just Samsung noise.


     


    Well now, my iPhone4 will be banned.


    Lovely,  I'll keep it forever as an Apple product banned near the end of it's contract life!  What a museum piece.

  • Reply 10 of 27
    joshajosha Posts: 901member


    Time for the USA Gov to ban the imports of the Samsung devices made in that North Korean  factory.


    Those products come from a not so nice country.

  • Reply 11 of 27
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    Example:  Qualcomm charges Apple about $15 per chip.  Just for the chip.  Then Qualcomm charges another ~4% of the device's cost on top of that for patent royalties, depending on what radios are involved.



     


    Please post a link to verify this outlandish claim.

  • Reply 12 of 27

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoshA View Post


    Time for the USA Gov to ban the imports of the Samsung devices made in that North Korean  factory.


    Those products come from a not so nice country.



    Samesung has an assembly plan in NORTH Korea? They're a SOUTH Korean company, and I don't believe the South Koreans want anything to do with the NORTH Koreans. Nothing would surprise me, though. 

  • Reply 13 of 27
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by RedGeminiPA View Post

    …I don't believe the South Koreans want anything to do with the NORTH Koreans.


     


    Uh… reunification of their country. That's relatively important to them.


     


    Each side still views the other as their brothers. The North views the South as having been brainwashed by the capitalist dogs in the United States. The South knows about the North and feels pity on them, but recognizes that while they do want reunification, it will start with a massive amount of damage to the south and end with an economic black hole that will make post-Soviet German Reunification look like two guys going out for coffee and one of them picks up the tab.






    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

    Please post a link to verify this outlandish claim.



     


    One or two neurons firing over here that tell me what he's saying is sort of true. Or at least there were lawsuits about this problem in the past.


     


    Remember? Someone sued Apple because the telephony chips that Apple bought used software (or maybe a hardware patent, I think) that the someone had made, and they demanded Apple pay them, but Qualcomm had ALREADY paid them their licensing fee and had passed that cost onto Apple in the price. Apple did NOT need to pay it separately.

  • Reply 14 of 27
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,178member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Uh… reunification of their country. That's relatively important to them.


     


    Each side still views the other as their brothers. The North views the South as having been brainwashed by the capitalist dogs in the United States. The South knows about the North and feels pity on them, but recognizes that while they do want reunification, it will start with a massive amount of damage to the south and end with an economic black hole that will make post-Soviet German Reunification look like two guys going out for coffee and one of them picks up the tab.


     


     


    One or two neurons firing over here that tell me what he's saying is sort of true. Or at least there were lawsuits about this problem in the past.


     


    Remember? Someone sued Apple because the telephony chips that Apple bought used software (or maybe a hardware patent, I think) that the someone had made, and they demanded Apple pay them, but Qualcomm had ALREADY paid them their licensing fee and had passed that cost onto Apple in the price. Apple did NOT need to pay it separately.



     


    Believe it or not, most Koreans don't want reunification. Having lived there and travel there frequently, the consensus is most like the idea, however, most don't want it. A few times, I've seen thousands of students protest at the University of Seoul against reunification. Years ago, Koreans wanted reunification, but times have changed and attitudes have changed towards reunification. The issue for South Koreans is reunification would destroy their economy. Reunification would be too much a burden for South Korea. I'm sure many Koreans feel they still want it, but from what I've seen having spent so much time there is the majority don't. 


  • Reply 15 of 27
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,178member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RedGeminiPA View Post


    Samesung has an assembly plan in NORTH Korea? They're a SOUTH Korean company, and I don't believe the South Koreans want anything to do with the NORTH Koreans. Nothing would surprise me, though. 



     


    The other poster was referring to the Kaesong industrial complex in North Korea. That's a joint complex run by South and North Koreas. As far as I'm aware, Samsung doesn't have an assembly plant there. The Kaesong complex does build parts for Samsung devices though. 


  • Reply 16 of 27
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    kdarling wrote: »

    It's not "stupid" to pursue a FRAND related injunction with the ITC.  They exist specifically for that purpose.

    Actually it is stupid to try for it. Because the courts and the ITC have taken public stands against such bans because they are for standards essential patents. It is felt that doing so is unfair to the banned party since the rules of FRAND include a requirement to license so the owners can't say no to taking money from the offenders if offensive is determined
  • Reply 17 of 27
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member


    Remember? Someone sued Apple because the telephony chips that Apple bought used software (or maybe a hardware patent, I think) that the someone had made, and they demanded Apple pay them, but Qualcomm had ALREADY paid them their licensing fee and had passed that cost onto Apple in the price. Apple did NOT need to pay it separately.

    That someone was Samsung and I believe it was in the counter suit to the big design patent brouhaha. Apple brought in proof of payment and exhaustion and Samsung was forced to drop the claim
  • Reply 18 of 27
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post



    Actually it is stupid to try for it. Because the courts and the ITC have taken public stands against such bans because they are for standards essential patents. 


     


    Quite the contrary.  This whole thread is about a possible ITC Section 337 ban.  In fact, just last October a judge at the ITC ruled that...


     


    "ETSI and its FRAND provisions do not preclude the imposition of Section 337 remedies in investigations in which the Commission determines that the authorizing statute is violated by reason of the importation into the United States of articles that infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent." - ITC


     


    In other words, injunctions are definitely available for FRAND patents at the ITC.   He also ruled that the ITC did not have to go along with the Koh jury's determination of patent exhaustion.


     


     


    What you and others are probably thinking of, is the DOJ/USPTO policy paper that asked the ITC to not use injunctions.  Yet that same paper said that injunctions are available under some circumstances:


     


    "For example, if a putative licensee refuses to pay what has been determined to be a F/RAND royalty, or refuses to engage in a negotiation to determine F/RAND terms, an exclusion order could be appropriate." -DOJ


     


    Even fanboy favorite Mueller, who generally sides with licensees, thought the DOJ policy paper was a mess and not likely to be adopted by the ITC.


     


    The ITC exists to ban offending imports.  It has no other power, and it's not likely to give up bans and become a moot government agency, not even in a subset like FRAND patents.

  • Reply 19 of 27

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post



    So the infringement is in someone else's chips which Apple uses. Seems like they are going after the wrong company! FK Samsung!


    Except when Apple goes after Samsung for an infringement which is in someone else's software which Samsung uses (for instance, the "selecting text" patent mentioned the other day — stock Android definitely has the ability to highlight selected text with a translucent box). That's perfectly cool.

  • Reply 20 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,107member
    kdarling wrote: »
    Quite the contrary.  This whole thread is about a possible ITC Section 337 ban.  <span style="line-height:1.231;">In fact, just last October a judge at the ITC</span>
    <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121007194355579" style="line-height:1.231;" target="_blank">ruled</a>
    <span style="line-height:1.231;"> that...</span>

    In other words, injunctions are definitely available for FRAND patents at the ITC.   <span style="line-height:1.231;">He also ruled that the ITC did not have to go along with the Koh jury's determination of patent exhaustion.</span>

    The ITC exists to ban offending imports.  It has no other power, and it's not likely to give up bans and become a moot government agency, not even in a subset like FRAND patents.

    One of the patent blogs wrote an article yesterday on a brief submitted to the judge by the ITC staff supporting an injunction on applicable Apple devices as entirely appropriate for infringement of Samsung's standard-essential IP in this case.
    http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/04/itc-staff-exclusion-order-is-an-appropriate-remedy-for-apple-infringement-of-samsung-sep/
Sign In or Register to comment.