Qualcomm argues continued Chinese iPhone sales violate court injunction

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 27
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,432administrator
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    The actual court orders are here for anyone wanting to read them:
    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/blog/bilingual-english-chinese-version-of-apple-injunction-order-in-both-qualcomm-cases-from-fuzhou-intermediate-peoples-court

    Rather than iOS12 being the differentiator it seems it's who the manufacturer is. Perhaps these two companies have been paying Qualcomm royalties despite Apple not reimbursing them?
    1. For the '586 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and for the 119 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and Compal Electronics Inc.
    Thank you Gatorguy. I'm read those orders later and hopefully then I'll better understand what actually happened.
    Good luck. It's not that telling.
  • Reply 22 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,448member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    The actual court orders are here for anyone wanting to read them:
    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/blog/bilingual-english-chinese-version-of-apple-injunction-order-in-both-qualcomm-cases-from-fuzhou-intermediate-peoples-court

    Rather than iOS12 being the differentiator it seems it's who the manufacturer is. Perhaps these two companies have been paying Qualcomm royalties despite Apple not reimbursing them?
    1. For the '586 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and for the 119 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and Compal Electronics Inc.
    Thank you Gatorguy. I'm read those orders later and hopefully then I'll better understand what actually happened.
    Good luck. It's not that telling.
    This is just a temporary 10 day order I believe. The final order or a dismissal is still to come. 
  • Reply 23 of 27
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    The actual court orders are here for anyone wanting to read them:
    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/blog/bilingual-english-chinese-version-of-apple-injunction-order-in-both-qualcomm-cases-from-fuzhou-intermediate-peoples-court

    Rather than iOS12 being the differentiator it seems it's who the manufacturer is. Perhaps these two companies have been paying Qualcomm royalties despite Apple not reimbursing them?
    1. For the '586 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and for the 119 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and Compal Electronics Inc.
    Thank you Gatorguy. I'm read those orders later and hopefully then I'll better understand what actually happened.
    Good luck. It's not that telling.
    It leaves some questions open, yeah. But it does tell us that, as written, the order doesn't just apply to iPhones running iOS 11. It applies to the models specified unless they were manufactured by the specified companies. That's what I suspected, that the order didn't specify just iOS 11 models.

    Apple doesn't think the order should apply to models running iOS 11, but it would seem that it's going to have to (successfully) make that argument to get the order changed. Had that issue not been addressed? Meaning, had Apple not previously argued (or not previously had the chance to argue) that those models would no longer infringe once they started shipping with iOS 12? Or is it Apple's position, in effect, that those models shipped with iOS 12 instead of iOS11 represent different products such that the court would need to consider them separately and separately issue an order prohibiting their sale? Meaning, they might still infringe but the court needs to make that finding? Who knows?

    There are a number of possibilities. But the order as written would seem to apply to the older iPhone models and, it would seem, the onus is on Apple to have that changed.
  • Reply 24 of 27
    EDIT: I originally quoted the wrong post, and don't see how to replace that post with the right one. So I've deleted (the substance of) my response and reposted it with the correct post being quoted.
    edited December 2018
  • Reply 25 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,448member
    carnegie said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    The actual court orders are here for anyone wanting to read them:
    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/blog/bilingual-english-chinese-version-of-apple-injunction-order-in-both-qualcomm-cases-from-fuzhou-intermediate-peoples-court

    Rather than iOS12 being the differentiator it seems it's who the manufacturer is. Perhaps these two companies have been paying Qualcomm royalties despite Apple not reimbursing them?
    1. For the '586 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and for the 119 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and Compal Electronics Inc.
    Thank you Gatorguy. I'm read those orders later and hopefully then I'll better understand what actually happened.
    Good luck. It's not that telling.
    It leaves some questions open, yeah. But it does tell us that, as written, the order doesn't just apply to iPhones running iOS 11. It applies to the models specified unless they were manufactured by the specified companies. That's what I suspected, that the order didn't specify just iOS 11 models.

    Apple doesn't think the order should apply to models running iOS 11, but it would seem that it's going to have to (successfully) make that argument to get the order changed. Had that issue not been addressed? Meaning, had Apple not previously argued (or not previously had the chance to argue) that those models would no longer infringe once they started shipping with iOS 12? Or is it Apple's position, in effect, that those models shipped with iOS 12 instead of iOS11 represent different products such that the court would need to consider them separately and separately issue an order prohibiting their sale? Meaning, they might still infringe but the court needs to make that finding? Who knows?

    There are a number of possibilities. But the order as written would seem to apply to the older iPhone models and, it would seem, the onus is on Apple to have that changed.
    FWIW China is fast becoming a major patent player both in quantity and IP rights enforcement. This should offer food for thought if offering products in China:
    https://www.winston.com/en/privacy-law-corner/china-says-it-will-blacklist-and-sideline-repeat-intellectual-property-right-violators.html

  • Reply 26 of 27
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    The actual court orders are here for anyone wanting to read them:
    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/blog/bilingual-english-chinese-version-of-apple-injunction-order-in-both-qualcomm-cases-from-fuzhou-intermediate-peoples-court

    Rather than iOS12 being the differentiator it seems it's who the manufacturer is. Perhaps these two companies have been paying Qualcomm royalties despite Apple not reimbursing them?
    1. For the '586 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and for the 119 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and Compal Electronics Inc.
    Thank you Gatorguy. I'm read those orders later and hopefully then I'll better understand what actually happened.
    Good luck. It's not that telling.
    This is just a temporary 10 day order I believe. The final order or a dismissal is still to come. 
    As I read it, the injunction is in place until the case is decided or until the court otherwise changes it (or, I would think, until the order is successfully appealed to another court).

    The 10-day period is how long Apple has to ask the court to reconsider.
  • Reply 27 of 27
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,432administrator
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    The actual court orders are here for anyone wanting to read them:
    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/blog/bilingual-english-chinese-version-of-apple-injunction-order-in-both-qualcomm-cases-from-fuzhou-intermediate-peoples-court

    Rather than iOS12 being the differentiator it seems it's who the manufacturer is. Perhaps these two companies have been paying Qualcomm royalties despite Apple not reimbursing them?
    1. For the '586 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and for the 119 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and Compal Electronics Inc.
    Thank you Gatorguy. I'm read those orders later and hopefully then I'll better understand what actually happened.
    Good luck. It's not that telling.
    This is just a temporary 10 day order I believe. The final order or a dismissal is still to come. 
    As I read it, the injunction is in place until the case is decided or until the court otherwise changes it (or, I would think, until the order is successfully appealed to another court).

    The 10-day period is how long Apple has to ask the court to reconsider.
    They have already done so.
Sign In or Register to comment.