itc
Latest
Bipartisan group of senators sends letter about trade ban to US trade rep
According to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, a bipartisan group of senators has asked the Obama administration to veto a looming import ban against older iPhone and iPads. The letter, dated July 30, was sent to US Trade Representative Michael Froman, who holds the power to veto this ban. Signing their names to the letter were Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho). The senators expressed concern that standard essential patents (SEPs) covering 3G cellular technology were at the heart of the ITC complaint between Samsung and Apple. These patents are meant to be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and not used in litigation. The senators note that the government has a chance to defend FRAND licensing terms. If it fails to act, then it might be setting a precedent that encourages other companies to withhold their SEPs and use them in litigation against their rivals. The senators write, Competition and consumers benefit tremendously from the creation of technology standards that promote interoperability, lower costs, and expand consumer choice. Standards are crucial to ensuring that consumers have access to a competitive market of compatible products. The standards setting process depends on a commitment from companies contributing patents to license those patents to all parties implementing the standard on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. If companies implementing standards cannot rely on FRAND commitments, they will be less likely to participate in standard setting, which will drive up costs for consumers and reduce the pace of innovation. The import ban goes into effect on August 5, 2013, unless it is vetoed by Froman.
Daily Update for August 1, 2013
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
Daily Update for July 29, 2013
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
Big guns have Apple's back in iPhone 4 ban
What do Microsoft, Oracle, Intel and AT&T have in common? All four of the major corporations are jumping to Apple's defense against the impending iPhone 4 ban ordered by the US International Trade Commission (ITC). The Wall Street Journal reports that a trade group representing Microsoft, Oracle and Intel -- BSA -- was joined by AT&T in supporting Apple's side of the ban, which was brought about thanks to arch-rival Samsung. Samsung won a case before the ITC, and the potential ban, which still has to be approved by US Trade Representative Michael Froman before going into effect on August 4, was sought as a patent-infringement settlement. BSA argues that the use of essential industry patents to ban products should not be allowed, except under unusual circumstances. The companies are concerned, though, that the ban sets precedent. Companies must license patented technology to competitors at a reasonable rate. This is known as FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing. Apple and the other companies are concerned that the ITC ruling might allow companies to demand excessive royalties by threatening a product ban on rivals if they don't open their wallets. AT&T's concern is that the ITC ruling eliminates a highly popular entry-level iPhone for AT&T customers, and they argue that a ban is "inconsistent with the president's goal of ubiquitous broadband deployment."
Verizon asks President Obama to veto iPhone ban
Last June, ITC handed down an order banning Apple from importing older AT&T-based models of the iPhone and iPad after finding that they infringed upon a Samsung patent. The specific models encompassed by the ban include the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4 and the first two generations of the iPad. The ITC ruling is final, and the only way for Apple to get around it is to secure a presidential veto. The ban is scheduled to go into effect on August 5th, and while the iPhone 3G and 3GS aren't active devices in Apple's product line, the iPhone 4 still continues to sell impressively well. Consequently, Apple isn't the only entity worried about the impending product ban. To that end, Verizon lawyer Randal Milch penned an article in today's Wall Street Journal imploring President Obama to step in and veto the ITC ban. Remember that the ban only affects AT&T-based models of the iPhone, but Verizon sees a larger public policy issue here that needs addressing. Unless the administration intervenes, the ban could be in effect by August 5. High-tech products can implicate thousands of patents. If the ITC finds that a product infringes even a single one, it can stop the product at the border. But that's basically it. The commission can't levy much in the way of a lesser penalty. In the end the consumer suffers when the use of such an enforcement tool is unwarranted. ... What we have warned is that patent litigation at the ITC-where the only remedy is to keep products from the American public-is too high-stakes a game for patent disputes. The fact that the ITC's intellectual-property-dispute docket has nearly quadrupled over 15 years only raises the stakes further. It remains to be seen if Obama ultimately decides to intervene, but history certainly isn't on Apple's side. The last U.S. President to veto an ITC import ban was Ronald Reagan who did so in 1987. Indeed, Milch articulates that the dearth of Presidential vetos over the last few decades underscores the notion that the import-ban power wielded by the ITC is unchecked. Apple, meanwhile, filed a motion a few weeks ago arguing that if the ITC ban is upheld, it will make the ITC an "outlier internationally and domestically" to the extent that the ruling renders "meaningless a FRAND commitment made to a standard-setting organization." Recall that the Samsung patent at issue here is subject to a technological standard, meaning that Samsung is obligated to license it to Apple on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. Apple also pointed out that the ruling runs counter to the very mission of the ITC itself, which is to protect American-based companies from unfair competition.
Microsoft sues US Customs and Border Protection for not enforcing ITC exclusion order against Motorola
Thought the ITC battle between Microsoft and Motorola over Microsoft's email-based meeting patents was over? Think again. Despite winning an exclusion order (read: an import ban) on all MMI handsets infringing its patent, Microsoft has filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia against US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Customs Deputy Commissioner Thomas Winkowski, the Department of Homeland Security and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for failing to enforce the order. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to do their jobs and allowed infringing devices to continue to be imported based upon claims and arguments Moto successfully made to US Customs -- and Microsoft was neither privy to these discussions, nor given the opportunity to respond to Motorola's claims. Essentially, Microsoft argues that Customs and Border Protection has both shirked its duties and made rulings in direct conflict with the ITC's decision and order. As such, Microsoft wants the court to rule that the CBP exceeded its legal authority, set aside the unlawful rulings set forth by CBP and compel it to enforce the ITC's exclusion order. In addition to the complaint, Microsoft also filed for a Preliminary Injunction asking that the original ITC import ban be enforced immediately. We've yet to hear how the government will respond to these allegations, but we'll keep you posted as things develop.
Apple asks ITC to stop impending ban on iPhones and iPads
The International Trade Commission (ITC) a few weeks ago issued an order banning the import of older generation iPhones and iPads to the extent they infringe upon Samsung owned patents. With the ban scheduled to go into effect on August 5th, Gigaom today is reporting that Apple filed a motion with the ITC asking for a stay on the impending ban until an appeals court weighs in on the ruling. Apple writes that the ban will "sweep away an entire segment of Apple's product offerings" and that they will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. If the Orders go into effect, Apple will lose not only sales of its iPhone 4 (GSM) and iPad 2 3G (GSM) products but also the opportunity to gain new smartphone and tablet customers who otherwise would have purchased these entry-level devices. Should the Commission's decision be reversed or modified on appeal, Apple will have no recourse to redress this harm. Apple further points out that if a stay is granted and the appeal process ultimately proves fruitless, Samsung will have recourse to the extent they can seek compensation for any potential loss of FRAND royalties. The iPhone 4, Apple writes, was the fourth-best selling smartphone in the US in 2012. In a separate appeal filed with the United States Trade Representative about two weeks ago, Apple argued that upholding the ban would make the ITC an "outlier internationally and domestically." Apple's most recent motion can be read below. Apple ITC Request for Stay
ITC judge rules against InterDigital in first round of 3G patent case (update)
After two long years, the International Trade Commission has finally come to a decision in favor of Huawei, Nokia and ZTE in a 3G patent case brought by InterDigital in 2011. According to an ITC judge, the three phone manufacturers did not violate the seven InterDigital-owned patents that covers various WCDMA and CDMA2000 technologies used to make their devices. InterDigital even went so far as to request the ban of US sales of these devices pending a decision. The Philadelphia-based company filed a similar complaint against LG, which chose a settlement instead of going through the courts but it argued it had a right to arbitration based on a previous licensing agreement and was taken out of the case (see update below). Still, this is just a preliminary ruling; the final decision of the case is expected in October. Update: The story initially said LG chose a settlement instead of going through the courts, which is incorrect. We learned from InterDigital that while LG was in the original case, the ITC took the Korean company out once LG said it had a right to arbitration. However, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit ruled earlier in June that the ITC has made a mistake in excluding LG. So, LG could still face the initial charges brought to it by InterDigital.
Patent challengers must prove they have a 'significant presence' in the US: ITC
The International Trade Commission has become increasingly tired of all the patent mischief it's forced to deal with, just as we've become tired of reporting on it. That's why its latest defense against time-wasters could potentially be a very good idea. According to Reuters, the ITC will soon demand upfront proof that the complainant in a patent case has a "significant presence in the United States" and isn't merely a fly-by-night outfit created for the purpose of pursuing litigation. The new rule has already been trialed in a pilot program, and Google, Intel, HP and others have voiced their support. It can't fix everything, of course, since major companies will still be able to game the system to hamper their rivals, but with the FTC and the White House also taking steps to subject "patent-assertion entities" to greater scrutiny, it feels like the wheels of government may be starting to catch up with the trolls.
ITC rules in favor of Samsung, issues import ban on older AT&T iPhones, iPads
Once again the ugly patent battles between Apple and Samsung have come to a head, only this time it's Samsung enjoying a victory. According to Reuters and Bloomberg, the International Trade Commission has issued an order to Apple to stop importing AT&T models of the iPad 3G, iPad 2 3G, iPhone 4, 3GS and 3. While newer models of the iPhone and iPad no longer use the tech the ITC says is infringing (mostly iDevices with Qualcomm chips), this ban is final and can only be negated by the White House or challenged and overturned in a Federal circuit court. The ITC ruling is here in PDF form. FOSS patents has a good breakdown of this case, noting that the ITC considered Apple's FRAND defense, then pretty much dismissed it. In other words, Apple argued there were standards-essential patents (SEPs) needed to make these products, and it was willing to license the infringing patents for a fair price. The ITC didn't see it that way and told Apple to stop importing the devices immediately. I'm not a lawyer, and that's a huge oversimplification, but the idea is that Samsung shouldn't be able to hobble a competitor when a competitor needs certain tech to actually make a product. Patent holders should license those for a fair price instead of arguing a wholesale ban on the product after it is designed, developed, manufactured and sold. In this case, the ITC saw differently. As Nilay Patel points out, the ITC is largely out of step with everyone else when it comes to SEPs, however. And there are lawmakers from both parties now getting involved in the dispute -- we are talking about a rather profitable American business that just got handed a huge "stop making money" order, after all. I'm sure to some this is seen as karma for Apple's other battles with Samsung, but I disagree. It's not like the patents we're talking about gave the iPhone some unique edge over the competition -- from what I can tell these were necessary components that at the time were the best engineering choice. Using communications chips is quite different than mimicking the look and feel of an operating system, or wholesale aping the design and functionality of another device. Does this mean AT&T (and anyone else using the CDMA tech) will have to quit offering cheaper iPhones? Probably not. Companies have had to pull products before, although this would be a huge blow to AT&T and Apple, who have seen growth in new smartphone users who are upgrading to the iPhone from feature phones and taking advantage of the older devices. President Barack Obama has 60 days to review and potentially veto this, however. It's unlikely, but it's not like the White House is a huge fan of heavy-handed patent rulings, offering a big slap to patent trolls just today. We'll keep you posted, but Apple appears to have spoken to CNBC, who tweeted that Apple will appeal and you won't see an impact on product availability in the US. Update: AllThingsD quotes Apple directly with the news that it will appeal and this changes nothing for customers thus far.
Samsung wins ITC ban of AT&T compatible iPhones and iPads due to patent infringement
Samsung got a big win in the International Trade Commission today, as the ITC handed down a final ruling finding that several models of AT&T-compatible iPhones and iPads infringe a Samsung patent, and issued an exclusion order preventing them from being imported, sold or distributed in the US. This final ruling comes months after an ALJ determined that Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's IP, but clearly, the commission felt differently upon its review. This final determination holds that AT&T models of the iPhone 4, 3GS and 3G, plus AT&T iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G models infringe four claims of Samsung's patent number 7,706,348 for encoding mobile communications. The ITC reversed the ALJ's ruling in part based upon modified construction of several key terms in the claims at issue, but upheld the prior decision regarding the other three patents Samsung asserted in the action. So, what does this mean for Apple? Not a tremendous amount, truthfully, as the newly banned devices are no longer Cupertino's standard bearers and account for little of the company's massive profits. Plus, Apple will, no doubt appeal the decision in court. Still, Samsung's bound to feel pretty good about the victory, and every little bit helps in its quest to remain atop the smartphone heap, right?
Microsoft cleared of Motorola patent violation claim
The International Trade Commission has decided not to review the decision made last March by the administrative law judge presiding over Motorola's patent infringement case against Microsoft, thereby validating the judge's findings – which were in favor of Microsoft – and closing the case, Engadget reports. The initial scuffle, first filed in 2010, claimed that Microsoft had infringed upon five of Motorola Mobility's patents. Four patents were dropped from the case during the course of the proceedings, the last remaining patent covering peer-to-peer communication between wireless devices. Originally, ITC judge David Shaw ruled in favor of Motorola and subsequently recommended a ban on Xbox imports into the US. Then, in June of last year, the ITC remanded the decision back to the administrative law judge and asked him to take another look, effectively starting the process all over again. His second ruling, this time in favor of Microsoft, was delivered last March and will be the final word on the subject, now that the ITC has declined the opportunity to review his decision.
Microsoft finally wins ITC battle with Motorola over wireless P2P patent (update)
In with a bang, out with a whimper. After making us fear for the Xbox 360's (shelf) life by delivering an adverse ruling in Motorola's ITC patent infringement case against Microsoft last year, the presiding Administrative Law Judge reversed his stance a couple months ago after prodding by the full Commission. While the finding of non-infringement was good news for Microsoft, the decision still needed to be OK'd by the Commission before the investigation could be officially closed. We thought we weren't going to get a final ruling until later in the summer, but the ITC apparently agreed with the ALJ's initial ruling ahead of schedule, and has decided not to review the decision today. As a result, the investigation is now closed, and this particular battle in the patent wars is finally over. Update: Naturally Microsoft Corporate VP and deputy General Counsel David Howard is excited to see this case be closed, and issued the following statement: This is a win for Xbox customers and confirms our view that Google had no grounds to block our products.
ITC tosses Motorola's sensor-based complaint against Apple
If you thought the patent war between Motorola (Google) and Apple was already over, you were mistaken. Though, today's decision by the ITC to toss Moto's complaint against Cupertino regarding the use of sensors to control the interface of a phone, might be one of the final blows struck. The claim over patent No. 6,246,862, was the last patent-in-suit standing from its 2010 complaint against Apple. Now it's been completely invalidated. The decision can still be appealed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and we can almost guarantee the company will take advantage of that option. (In fact, it already is with previous decisions that did not go in its favor.) With courts tossing out complaints left and right, and some companies even willingly withdrawing them, we certainly keep hoping that the era patent Risk is coming to an end. The ITC tossing out yet another complaint is a big loss for Motorola and Google. But, Apple has lost plenty of its own suits recently. It seems that both sides are settling into a stalemate. And ultimately pushing these competitors to innovate in the market instead of the courtroom is good for consumers.
ITC initial determination finds Microsoft doesn't infringe Motorola peer-to-peer wireless patent
Microsoft and Motorola's spat in the International Trade Commission started way back in 2010, but it looks like the case may be finally drawing to a conclusion after an initial ruling in Moto's favor was remanded for a second look. Reuters reports that on remand, the presiding administrative law judge reversed his stance in a new initial determination, clearing Microsoft of the remaining infringement charge for patent number 6,069,896 on wireless peer-to-peer technology. In response to this bit of good news, Microsoft VP Corporate VP and deputy general counsel had this to say: We are pleased with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Microsoft did not violate Motorola's patent and are confident that this determination will be affirmed by the Commission. Back in October of last year, Motorola dropped the two WiFi-related patents it had asserted against Microsoft, and in January of 2013 it dropped both of its H.264 related patents from the ITC proceeding. With this latest ruling, it looks like Microsoft will escape from the ITC scott free, though it's not out of the woods yet, as the final call from the full commission won't occur until July. And, of course, Motorola can always take things to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should it choose to do so. Isn't the system of endless appeals that is the United States judicial system wonderful?
ITC to rule on Apple's Samsung complaint August 1
Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender of the International Trade Commission (ITC) has scheduled a final ruling on one of Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for August 1, 2013. The ruling in question deals with a decision made by Pender in October of 2012 finding Samsung to be in violation of a design patent and three utility patents owned by Apple. Pender had recommended that the ITC force a ban on certain Samsung products that were infringing on Apple patents, but the ITC returned two of those patents -- dealing with providing translucent images on a display and headphone plug detection circuitry -- back to Pender for him to reconsider. Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents commented that even if Pender rules in Apple's favor, it's not certain whether or not that will result in a ban on infringing Galaxy products in the US. Samsung has designed workarounds to bypass several of the violations, although Pender will have the final word on whether or not those workarounds are sufficient to keep a ban at bay. [via AppleInsider]
ITC Judge recommends Samsung post 88 percent value bond, import bans in Apple patent case
If you're keeping track of the multiple, and let's face it, tiresome Samsung / Apple patent debacle, a document that just turned up at the ITC might spell more trouble for the Korean manufacturer. It's a publicly redacted version of Judge Pender's recommendations, and pertains to the October ruling that deemed Samsung borrowed four of Cupertino's designs. The most iconic being design patent D618,678 (that which you see above). The others include multi-touch patent 7,479,949 (which was tentatively invalidated) along with two other patents (RE41,922 and 7,912,501) relating to graphic display elements and audio hardware detection. If the recommendations are adopted -- and FOSS Patents suggests this is entirely possible -- Samsung could face a US import ban after a 60 day presidential review, an order prohibiting "significant" sales of infringing products in America along with a posting a bond for 88 percent of the entered value of mobile phones (plus 32.5 percent for media players and 37.6 percent for tablets) that include the breaching design features. Pender has, however, reportedly cleared several Samsung "designarounds" which, if implemented to satisfaction, would mean the tech giant could continue trading. For now though, the recommendations are awaiting the Commission's review.
ITC Judge finds Motorola patent claim invalid in case against Apple
Apple and Motorola's patent spat at the ITC has been dragging on for months, with Moto getting a favorable infringement ruling early on -- but it seems that Apple will be ending the year on a legal high note. That aforementioned win by MMI was overturned in August, when the Commission found that Apple had not, in fact, infringed one of Motorola's WiFi patents. In making that ruling, the Commission remanded the case to Judge Pender and asked him to revisit his finding of non-infringement on a separate, touch UI patent at issue. Today, Pender finished that task, making an Initial Determination on Remand that, while Apple's products infringe the patent claim in question, there is no violation because said claim is invalid. Why the finding of invalidity? Well, Pender found that the claim is anticipated by another, older patent that's owned by Motorola, but not asserted in the action. This undoubtedly brings good tidings to Apple's legal department, as it could mean this fight with Moto (as opposed to all the others) is coming to an end. That said, Motorola isn't bereft of holiday hope -- it can still appeal Pender's latest ruling.
Google settles patent lawsuit from Immersion over Motorola use of haptic feedback
Immersion is known for guarding its haptic feedback patents with enthusiasm -- just ask Microsoft, among others. Motorola learned first-hand when Immersion sued over the use of basic haptic technology in May, but all that's water under the bridge now that Motorola's new parent Google is settling the matter out of court. While the exact sums aren't public, Google will pay Immersion to address any relevant past shipments, license the patents for future Motorola shipments and take care of "certain issues" with Google-badged hardware using the disputed vibration techniques. Immersion's end of the bargain is simply to end its legal action, including an ITC complaint, although the company makes clear that non-Motorola Android phones aren't covered by the deal. We're sure Google isn't happy to shoulder additional costs on top of its $12.5 billion Motorola acquisition, although it may see the settlement as a matter of establishing focus. After all, there's bigger fish to fry.
Motorola scales back ITC case against Xbox, drops WiFi patent complaints
Since taking over Motorola Mobility, Google has started to rein in some of the manufacturer's legal adventures. First, it struck a licensing deal with Apple in Germany, then it withdrew an ITC complaint against the company in early October. Now Microsoft is benefiting from its new, seemingly less lawsuit-happy adversary. Moto has decided to pull its WiFi-related patent claims from a complaint against the Xbox 360. That still leaves its H.264 patents on the docket, though, we wouldn't be surprised to see the case disappear completely before the two companies go to trial in December. Microsoft claims it's entitled to a reciprocal license from Google due to an existing agreement between Mountain View and MPEG LA. German courts have already ruled that Motorola's claims regarding its H.264 patents are strong enough to issue injunctions against the Xbox 360 and Windows 7, however the company has been unable to enforce those sales bans due to ongoing investigations in the US.
