ITC issues 'limited' import ban on iPhones, iPads for violating Samsung patent

ITC issues 'limited' import ban on iPhones, iPads for violating Samsung patent

Summary: The U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a limited import ban on some Apple products after ruling the iPhone and iPad maker violated a Samsung patent.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple, Legal
24

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued a limited import ban and a cease and desist order for some iPhones and iPads, following a patent infringement battle with Samsung.

According to the ITC notice [PDF], the U.S. import ban affects the AT&T versions of iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G, iPad 2 3G devices. The ban means that Apple in the U.S. cannot import these products, as they are manufactured elsewhere in the world, notably China. 

The cease and desist order also prohibits Apple from selling and distributing the infringing models. The decision went in Samsung's favor based on a single patent — U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348, which is owned by Samsung — that included Apple's "wireless communications devices" and "portable music and data processing devices."

However, the ITC ruled that three other Samsung patents were not infringed by Apple.

The Commission said in its ruling that it had "determined that the public interest factors [...] do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order."

The final ruling can however be overturned by the Federal Circuit Court or the White House.

The news was reported on Reuters and Bloomberg wires on Tuesday after the markets closed. Apple ($AAPL) was trading down more than 1 percent in after hours trading on the Nasdaq.

Topics: Apple, Legal

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

24 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Ahhh, the irony

    Where is my popcorn?
    D.T.Long
    • So, what you are saying is that it's OK for Samsung

      to file patent infringement cases against Apple because, what? Apple is evil and Samsung is noble and pure? Oh, wait. You think Apple started it, so it's only fair they get a taste of their own medicine. Because Samsung is a poor helpless little $50 billion dollar a year company bullied about by big, mean Apple.
      baggins_z
      • What a load of FUD from an obvious iSheep!

        Can't you read properly at your age? "Ahhh, the irony

        Where is my popcorn?"

        But since you open the topic, it simply means Karma is a B!TcH.

        Now Samsung can go back and sue for damages on top of the 2.4% FRAND rate that applies to everybody else, including Apple, for their own 3G technology developed by and in Samsung. Guess who owns the most technical patents regarding 4G and the next 5G supersets of 3G???

        Also it clearly shows Apple who started it all, by accusing others of 'Slavishly Stealing', are the real thieves here. That is priceless.

        Going "thermonuclear" was the worst thing a madman could do to the brand and reputation of Apple.

        Do you seriously think it ends here? Are you really that naïve?

        Steve would say: "Hey you are drinking it wrong!"
        iPetard
  • Interesting

    this is going to be interesting. That probably will result in a humorous post on"stuff appletards say"
    leaot
    • here

      And here they are already!
      http://stuff-appletards-say.blogspot.ch/2013/06/part-27-iphone-import-ban-special.html
      leaot
  • Apple, shame on you

    stealing is not good! And the notorious rectangle with rounded corners turned out to be "a stolen product" from ... a rhombus with oval corners!!!
    I can't believe, my favorite company did it!
    eulampius
    • Woohoo! Yet another person who is

      not only ignorant, but proudly ignorant on what constitutes trade dress!
      baggins_z
      • I guess

        that a gust of wind had a long time ago already lifted up the Apple's trade dress to reveal the pretty dirty trade underpants ;-)
        eulampius
  • worst of all

    Consumers pay for those corporate fights.

    Whoever invented this essential patents junk was real moron.
    danbi
    • essential patents make sense as long as

      they are traded among all participants on a mutual basis. The problem is when Apple uses them without offering anything in return and still expects to pay very little.
      csomole
      • Re: they are traded among all participants on a mutual basis

        So instead of an anticompetitive monopoly, you have an anticompetitive cartel?
        ldo17
        • no, just paying for R&D

          Unless paid for, there is no incentive to innovate. FRAND payments and others' technology at a low cost are the payment for innovators' R&D. As there is no bar to entry to those able and willing to contribute, it is not anticompetitive.

          Now, if chair manufacturers or makers of music players want to branch into mobile-phone production, they should pay full cost or put something in kind on the table themselves. Or, the very least, don't arrogantly sue hardware inventors for using common-sense soft solutions to common tasks.
          csomole
          • Re: Unless paid for, there is no incentive to innovate

            You make it sound like companies are entitled to payment, rather than having to compete for it on the free market.

            How much is this "innovation" worth? Only what the market is prepared to pay for it.
            ldo17
          • companies ARE entitled to payment for patented tech use

            FRAND was created to provide an incentive for industry players to quickly standardize in the consumers' interest through give and take, rather than grimly sticking with their own solutions to every task.

            Its purpose was not to make access to patented technology near costless to new entrants.
            csomole
          • Re: companies ARE entitled to payment for patented tech use

            Who decides how much?
            ldo17
          • You make it sound like Apple can't compete

            on anything but worthless, trivial 'Design' trade dress patents.

            The problem is the Design Patent should never be awarded at all. A simple trade-logo copyrighted and trademarked would suffice. Just look at Pepsi versus Coke. Patented right?
            iPetard
      • They are fair as long as Apple is charged

        the same as everyone else for the patents.
        baggins_z
    • Gee I don't know, but I feel competition is alive and well?

      Coming from an iPhone 3GS to Samsung Galaxy S2, Google Samsung Nexus, and now Samsung Galaxy S4, while many of my friends and colleagues also use the wide variety of available freely competing products?

      But it took a real manufacturer, that doesn't even need mobile electronics to remain viable, to stand up to the Apple patent trolling bully. However, more than 50% of all of AAPL's valuation is speculated on the iPhone alone, and another 20% on the iPad...

      One trick pony? Who would that be? Apple or Samsung?
      iPetard
      • Oops I forgot to say "If you can't compete, litigate"

        The Thermonuclear way. Way to go Apple.

        This ruling is potentially devastating for Apple. It’ll hurt on the sales front, even though those are all old devices with limited sales (and in some cases none).

        But this is much more painful on the brand and public relations front, as Apple has portrayed itself as an innovator and slandered Samsung as a copier.

        It’s harder to do that when you’ve lost a major international patent infringement lawsuit.
        iPetard
  • Remember thermonuclear threat?

    If I was Samsung, I'd would stay low and retract the patent infringement claim. Jobs said, as a great artist, he would shamelessy steal a thermo nuclear weapon and drop it on his opponents.
    RelaxWalk