[ad_1]
It's Qualcomm 1, Apple 1 in the last installment of the patents' patent bitterness – the contentious litigation case of intellectual property infringement lawsuits that also combine a $ 1 billion royalty action filed by Cupertino, alleging that the manufacturer's conditions of license mobile chips are unfair.
Apple filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm two years ago and the trial is expected to begin next month. But a US Federal Court judge released a more specific article this month, in the form of a preliminary ruling – finding that Qualcomm owed Apple nearly $ 1 billion in royalty rebate payments from Apple. patents. So this audience room looks like one to watch for sure.
Yesterday, the double development of the global saga concerns the patent charges filed by Qualcomm against Apple in 2017, through complaints filed with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in which it sought to block the national imports of iPhone.
In an initial ruling regarding one of those patent complaints published yesterday, an ITC administrative law judge found that Apple had violated one of Qualcomm's patents – and had recommended an import ban.
Although Apple can (and probably will) request a review of this non-binding decision.
Related: Another ITC judge concluded last year that Apple had violated another Qualcomm patent but had not ordered to ban imports – for reasons of & # 39; "public interest".
Moreover, the ITC staff had not yet found any violation of the same patent, which would probably support the review. (The subject patent, US Patent No. 8,063,674, relates to "multiple power on / off detectors".)
Later yesterday, the ITC issued a final decision on a second complaint relating to the Qualcomm patent against Apple – finding that there was no patent infringement on the three claims remaining in dispute (to namely: US Patent No. 9,535,490, US Patent No. 8,698,558 and US Patent No. 8,633,936), terminating its investigation.
Although Qualcomm has declared to want to appeal.
The panoply of developments falls into the "relatively minor battle" category of this slow-motion global legal warfare in the high-tech field (however, the ITC's final decision seems most important); Coinciding with the outcome of a jury trial held in San Diego earlier this month, which had resulted in Qualcomm's favor at the expense of some patents, the ITC had allowed Apple to counterfeit.
According to Reuters, the chip maker has invoked the contradictory outcome of the previous jury trial to warrant a "reconsideration" of the CTI's decision.
"The Commission's decision is inconsistent with the recent unanimous verdict of a jury finding a violation of the same patent after Apple dropped its defense of invalidity at the end of the trial," Qualcomm said in a statement. "We will request reconsideration by the Commission following the verdict of the jury."
However, given the extreme complexities of chipset component patents, it is not really surprising that the jury results in a different outcome than that of a USITC judge.
In the other corner, Apple has released its usual and striking statement regarding the latest developments, mentioning: "Qualcomm is using these cases to avoid having to respond to real problems, to their monopolistic business practices."
Sure to say, the saga continues litigious.
Other notable (but still partial) victories for Qualcomm include a court ruling in China last year banning the sale of iPhone on the market – Apple filed an action for annulment. So, no iPhone ban China for the moment.
And an injunction ordered by a German court that forced Apple to briefly remove some iPhone models from their sales in its own stores in January. In February, the models were back on their shelves – although now with Qualcomm, no Intel chips inside.
But everything was not successful at Qualcomm in Germany. Also in January, another court in the country rejected a separate patent claim as unfounded.
Source link
