Chinese court overturns patent ruling, enabling continued iPhone 6 sales by Apple
The Intellectual Property Court in Beijing has overturned a ruling that found Apple violated a patent belonging to a Chinese tech firm, Shenzhen Baili -- and in the process, removed the threat of a city-wide ban on iPhone 6 and 6 Plus sales.
In summer 2016, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office found that Apple had copied the exterior of a Baili smartphone -- the 100C -- through design traits like curved edges and rounded corners, Agence France-Presse noted on Saturday. Sales were allowed to continue temporarily while Apple's appeal was underway.
The 100C patent dates back to March 2014, around the time leaked images of the iPhone 6 began to emerge. Baili has sometimes been accused of simply copying those leaks to beat the iPhone 6 design to market, something which it denies.
Baili filed suit against Apple in Dec. 2014, but by the time of the IPO decision, both it and its parent company had become insolvent. The IPO nevertheless issued the suspended sales injunction against Apple.
In its appeal, Apple argued that the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus included 13 technical differences with the 100C, and that the average shopper could "easily" distinguish between the phones.
Apple has sometimes had a rough experience with the Chinese patent and trademark system, for instance having to pay out $60 million to settle an iPad trademark dispute.
In summer 2016, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office found that Apple had copied the exterior of a Baili smartphone -- the 100C -- through design traits like curved edges and rounded corners, Agence France-Presse noted on Saturday. Sales were allowed to continue temporarily while Apple's appeal was underway.
The 100C patent dates back to March 2014, around the time leaked images of the iPhone 6 began to emerge. Baili has sometimes been accused of simply copying those leaks to beat the iPhone 6 design to market, something which it denies.
Baili filed suit against Apple in Dec. 2014, but by the time of the IPO decision, both it and its parent company had become insolvent. The IPO nevertheless issued the suspended sales injunction against Apple.
In its appeal, Apple argued that the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus included 13 technical differences with the 100C, and that the average shopper could "easily" distinguish between the phones.
Apple has sometimes had a rough experience with the Chinese patent and trademark system, for instance having to pay out $60 million to settle an iPad trademark dispute.
Comments
Is this the first court case in Apple's favour in China ?
Is this the first time a foreign company has won a court case against a Chinese company in China ?
I honestly don't know and frankly don't care enough to research it. And if you picked up a hint of cynicism in the questions you would be correct.
the "rectangle with rounded corners" was a phrase invented by Samsung's German lawyers in a case about the iPad. They claimed that the Samsung model differed so much from the iPad, that it could easy be told apart. They coined that phrase in that case.
while the iPad had a 3:2 screen, and the Samsung a 16:9 screen, when the judge held both up to the lawyers, from ten feet away, they couldn't tell which was which, and lost the lawsuit.
apple invented the shape and look of the modern tablet. Before the ipad, tablets looked entirely different. They patented that with a design patent, which has always been considered to be legit, and has a concept that goes way back.
in addition, it should be known that Apple is not the company with the most design patents, Samsung is. Apple is also not the company that sues most over their design patents. Samsung is. Apple is also not the company that gets sued the most about using other companies design patents (they almost never are), Samsung is.
that's really it in a nutshell.
heres an example of why the iPad was so different, and why Apple was right to patent and defend it.
http://www.cultofmac.com/109373/what-tablets-looked-like-before-the-ipad-proves-how-revolutionary-apples-tablet-really-was/
and making statements here about how terrible this all is isn't that simple. If Apple didn't apply for design patents there, but this company did, then that's Apple's fault.