ITC rules Samsung infringed upon two Apple patents

ITC rules Samsung infringed upon two Apple patents

Summary: In other words, certain Samsung mobile devices could be banned from being sold in the United States soon.

SHARE:

The International Trade Commission returned with a ruling on Friday that could once again shift the dynamics of the domestic mobile market.

See also: Google expands open patent pledge to 79 more about data center management

The ITC sided with Apple this time, finding that Samsung infringed upon at least two of the iPhone maker's patents.

In other words, certain Samsung mobile devices could be banned from being sold in the United States soon.

The two patents in question are:

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 (a.k.a. the ’949 patent; affects claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 17-20): Concerns touch commands on touch-screen devices
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,912,501 (a.k.a. the ’501 patent; affects claims 1-4 and 8): Concerns input and output detection for microphone and headphone jacks

Here's a snippet from the ruling about the ITC's recommendation going forward:

The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order prohibiting Samsung from importing certain electronic digital media devices that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 17-20 of the ’949 patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the ’501 patent. The Commission has also determined to issue cease and desist orders prohibiting SEA and STA from further importing, selling, and distributing articles that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 17-20 of the ’949 patent and claims 1-4 and 8 of the ’501 patent in the United States. The orders do not apply to the adjudicated design around products found not to infringe the asserted claims of the ’949 and the ’501 patents as identified in the final ID. The Commission has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the public and has determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1) and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

It should be noted that the ITC found no infringement on the following four patents: Patent Nos. D618,678 (“the D’678 patent”); D558,757 (“the D’757 patent”); RE 41,922 (“the ’922 patent”); and 7,789,697 (“the ’697 patent”)..

Wrapping up an investigation stemming back from August 2011, the Commission declared that the decision is final and the investigation into the case is over.

The only way that Samsung could stave off a ban is if the decision is vetoed by President Obama.

Yet just last week, the White House shot down an ITC court ruling that would have prevented Apple from selling older versions of its iPhone and iPad in the United States.

The Presidential Review Period is the next 60 days, at which point the import ban will begin if the ITC's decision has not been overturned.

To see the entire ruling, scroll through the document below:

ITC rules Samsung infringed upon two Apple patents

Topics: Legal, Apple, Mobility, Patents, Samsung

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

Talkback

35 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Is Obama going to veto this ban?

    Or is he going to be a hypocrite?
    BCF1968
    • I Hope He Does

      Though there are significant differences with regards to the nature of Samsung's FRAND patents which at the heart of the President's veto, I've decided that nuclear options, or end-arounds through the ITC to avoid a costly patent infringement suit, are not helping us reduce patent-madness.
      DannyO_0x98
    • Of course he will

      We know he is fair and just and he would not promote the interests of a contributor and American company over Korean one /sarcasm
      kirovs@...
      • I find it interesting how apple apologists act

        When apple pled guilty in the EU for forming a cartel, a blatant anti-trust activity, yet they fought tooth and nail in the US (eventually losing and being found guilty and convicted of anti-trust violations) I pointed out that even apple knew they were wrong because they pled guilty in the EU.

        We were told that the rules were different in the EU and so that apple pleading guilty in the EU "didn't count" and certainly didn't mean that apple thought they were guilty.

        Watch, I bet someone will bring up the EU in this post and try to claim that because Samsung was wrong in the EU, it proves they were wrong here.
        toddbottom3
        • Toddy bets

          Do you bet Toddy, that Samsung has one agenda in the EU and another agenda in the US?

          The EU were wise enough to not play games with Samsung and tell them up front: If you intend to insist on abusing FRAND, we will fine you 10% of your money. Wanna play ball?

          Guess what it was Samsung chose.
          danbi
    • Do you understand the difference...

      between the two cases?

      That's rhetorical, of course, since you obviously don't.

      The first case involved FRAND patents. Samsung withdrew a case over the same issue in the EU, since they would have run afoul of anti-trust laws if they didn't. The overturning of the ITC put the US in line with the rest of the world.

      This case involves non-FRAND patents.
      msalzberg
      • You misunderstand FRAND

        FRAND is based on the assumption that companies contribute to the standard. Show me an example where Apple did so.
        kirovs@...
        • Re: FRAND is based on the assumption that companies contribute to the stand

          No, it does not.

          The FRAND terms require the IP holder to license under the same terms to anyone. Even your uncle, if he so wishes.
          danbi
  • Aha, this proves that apple is being picked on by the government

    If only apple would pay more, lobby more, then they wouldn't keep being victimized by the government.

    Wait, apple won?

    Huh. But baggins promised us that the government is picking on apple so that apple pays more taxes.

    Huh.
    toddbottom3
    • Try actually READING the article

      You've got the article backwards.
      BCF1968
      • Reading is not one of Toddy's strong skills

        He bites on anything that mentions Apple.
        He will blame Apple even if they purchase Microsoft or Nokia.
        danbi
        • Danbi

          just wanted to point out here, that clearly Microsoft and Apple are the allies here. In this whole FRAND saga, they use the same predatory practices
          eulampius
          • Both Apple and Microsoft...

            have pledged NOT to use their FRAND patents as weapons. So, no, they don't "use the same predatory practices."
            msalzberg
          • ronded corners is not a FRAND

            >> have pledged NOT to use their FRAND patents as weapons.
            They simply don't have any. BTW, FRAND is voluntary thing. MS, for instance, (ab)uses exFAT long filenames patent, which is a pretty moot point to begin with, since Linus Torvalds used the idea long before MS submitted it.
            eulampius
          • Re: BTW, FRAND is voluntary thing.

            No, it is not.

            Submitting to FRAND is *mandatory* if you desire your IP to be part of the standard. Most companies *die* to submit under FRAND.

            This is, because having their IP in SEP gives them great benefits and quick to market wins.
            danbi
    • Life?

      Do you actually have a life or do you just spend all of your time on ZDNet boards. Kind of sad really.
      gribittmep
    • re: Aha, this proves that apple is being picked on by the government

      No wonder you have no friends.
      none none
    • Oh, the wonderful irony

      I'm laughing so hard at people who clearly didn't read my post to the end accusing me of not reading the article.

      Too funny, you just can't make this stuff up.
      toddbottom3
  • Avoid AAPL

    Three years ago I saw how AAPL treated their small developers. Since that time, I have gotten rid of my MacBook Pro, my Mac Pro, and my iPod. I refuse to do business with AAPL any longer.

    Most of the patents in question probably should not have been granted in the first place. Companies like to get patents to protect themselves, so I am not against applying for the patent. A FEW companies like to use their patents to bully the competition. I believe that AAPL can't compete, so they have to throw their patents around and bully others. Ultimately, very little will change.

    All this AAPL litigation shows how desperate they are becoming. Their market share is shrinking and they no longer have the most loyal customers. Too bad.
    Keltypack
    • Please.

      It's more like you never had anything Apple to begin with and are some sort of Samsung/Android troll who's trying to blame Apple for something they didn't do.

      They sued because Samsung blatantly copied their tech and copied the iPad right down to the very packaging. Apple is the company that reignited the smartphone market and started the tablet market - hell they were the first ones to sell PCs to consumers rather than to businesses. But yeah Apple can't compete...
      NonFanboy