ITC to review decision that cleared Apple of infringing Samsung patents
The U.S. International Trade Commission announced on Monday that it will revisit a September decision which found Apple's products to not violate certain Samsung patents, with a final judgment that could lead to an injunction against the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.
As noted by Reuters, the ITC is set to review a preliminary decision made by Administrative Law Judge James Gildea that found Apple's iDevice lineup to not infringe on Samsung's wireless patents. The final determination, to be made by the full commission, may overturn the judge's findings, possibly leading to a ban of U.S. sales.
The case apparently warrants a more detailed investigation as the ITC had the option to uphold Judge Gildea's preliminary decision.
Samsung first filed for a ban of Apple's allegedly infringing products in June 2011, claiming "many" of its innovations were being copied by the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. It was revealed that the intellectual property under review dealt with patents for certain wireless technologies.
Most recently, Apple won a favorable ruling in another ITC case when Judge Thomas Pender found Samsung to have infringed on three of six asserted utility patents and one design property, including IP for touchscreen heuristics co-invented by the late Steve Jobs. That complaint was first filed in July 2011 as a countersuit to the Samsung's original ITC complaint.
The full commission is scheduled to both review the Samsung complaint and issue a ruling on whether it will revisit Judge Pender's decision in January.
As noted by Reuters, the ITC is set to review a preliminary decision made by Administrative Law Judge James Gildea that found Apple's iDevice lineup to not infringe on Samsung's wireless patents. The final determination, to be made by the full commission, may overturn the judge's findings, possibly leading to a ban of U.S. sales.
The case apparently warrants a more detailed investigation as the ITC had the option to uphold Judge Gildea's preliminary decision.
Samsung first filed for a ban of Apple's allegedly infringing products in June 2011, claiming "many" of its innovations were being copied by the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. It was revealed that the intellectual property under review dealt with patents for certain wireless technologies.
Most recently, Apple won a favorable ruling in another ITC case when Judge Thomas Pender found Samsung to have infringed on three of six asserted utility patents and one design property, including IP for touchscreen heuristics co-invented by the late Steve Jobs. That complaint was first filed in July 2011 as a countersuit to the Samsung's original ITC complaint.
The full commission is scheduled to both review the Samsung complaint and issue a ruling on whether it will revisit Judge Pender's decision in January.
Comments
Why? Samsung probably employs more Americans than Apple, also looking to create manufacturing plant in Texas. The probably doing more for the US economy than Apple.
Banning either seems stupid and childish. If you ban Samsung are you talking about all their products? as pretty much most of the HW in the iDevices are made by Samsung ( for the time being ).
If you feel that strongly about Samsunf don't buy their products... and if you fanatically hate them go flush your iPhone down the toilet and that is riddled with Samsung componentry.
Why not let all the hardware manufacturers compete against each other and let us reap the benefits of that competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...with a final judgment that could lead to an injunction against the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch….
Maybe I don't get this but why would they be looking at the ruling that says Apple did not infringe on Samsung and if so ban Apple's iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Seems like the ITC et al might ban Samsung's stuff and make them pay repartitions to Apple for theft of the IP, designs, etc...
In my best Vinnie Babbarino voice: "I'm so confused!"
deleted
Waiting for the usual haters to spin this to make it seem like theoriginal decision was flawed. ITC rulings very frequently get looked at a second time. Nothin got see here until they actually publish their final decision.
This is just a political gesture. The probability that Apple products will be banned in the USA is 0. We all know that. If American government kills the #1 American company just to make Samsung the dominant force in the global tech industry, there will be revolt. ITC is under fire because there is growing criticism about American protectionism in some parts of the world.
Originally Posted by 69ergoo
The probability that Apple products will be banned in the USA is 0. ITC is under fire because there is growing criticism about American protectionism in some parts of the world.
These two seem in contradiction.
The odious practice of suing based on FRAND patents has also become a scourge on the industry. I heard today that the major players are spending upwards of $20 billion on litigation, an amount equal to or greater than that spent on R & D.
This sucks.
the issue was whether or not Apple infringed on Samsung's patents. If overruled, that means Apple infringed and the products consisting of infringing components will be banned from importation. (Ironically Apple's products are still *imported* from China so can be banned).
Whether or not Samsung infringed on Apple's patents was not at issue in this case.
@rfhjr
this has always been so. simply there have not been enough cases to be tried regarding the issues between Apple and Samsung (especially with regard to the design patents and FRAND terms). Apple and Samsung will be a landmark case that hopefully can set some clear standards.
Originally Posted by 69ergoo
Tallest Skill, I meant to say the ITC acted politically to squash the growing concern about American protectionism in favor of its companies. Apple winning the overwhelmingly favorable jury verdict in California and recent ITC preliminary decisions inn support of Apple did trigger criticism from the antis.
Oh, I see.
And there again we have an example of bowing to outside pressure and giving people what they think they want…