A few days ago, Qualcomm issued a statement saying that two temporary injunctions filed with Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court against four China subsidiaries of Apple were supported by the court.
According to the above ban, Apple should immediately stop infringing the two patents involved in Qualcomm's case, including prohibiting the import, sale and promised sale of unauthorized products in China. Related product models include seven Apple phones, including iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X.
Regarding the above temporary ban, Apple said that all iphones currently sold are pre-installed with iOS 12 system, which does not infringe on the two patented technologies involved in this case, and consumers in China can still buy all types of iPhone products.
Many people have doubts about when the temporary ban will take effect and its scope. In addition, they are puzzled by Apple's claim that the pre-installed version of IOS 12 system will not be affected by the ban.
Then, in the context of the continuous strengthening of intellectual property protection in China, how should we treat the above temporary ban?
Controversy continues: Apple v. Qualcomm Monopoly, and Qualcomm v. Apple for arrears and infringement.
As we all know, the conflict between Apple and Qualcomm caused by patent dispute can be traced back to the beginning of 20 17.
20 17 65438+ 10 On October 20th, Apple sued Qualcomm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, accusing Qualcomm of monopolizing the wireless device chip market and accusing Qualcomm of losing $65,438 billion through unfair patent authorization.
Subsequently, Apple filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm in China, Britain and other places. Most of the contents involved are related to the abuse of market dominance and patent licensing.
On April 7th, Qualcomm began to take a counter-attack strategy. First, it counterclaimed Apple in the United States, and then, because Apple stopped paying patent licensing fees, it sued four foundries, including Foxconn and Compal, which made iPhone and iPad for Apple around the world.
After taking certain litigation measures, it seems that the business negotiations between the two sides are not progressing smoothly.
20 17, 10 In June, due to Qualcomm's delay in suing Apple for infringing its standard essential patents, Apple sued Qualcomm to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to confirm that its iPhone and iPad products did not infringe the three standard essential patents of Qualcomm.
Starting from 20 17 1 1, Qualcomm began to fight back in the China market, and filed more than 16 patent infringement lawsuits in the courts of Beijing, Fuzhou, Qingdao, Nanjing and Guangzhou.
Patents involved: Only two patents in Qualcomm were invalidated, and Apple was under great pressure.
Apple filed a request for invalidation with the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board) on the patent involved in Qualcomm's lawsuit against Apple.
Despite incomplete statistics, up to now, ten patents involved in Qualcomm have been declared invalid, of which six were declared valid, two were partially valid and partially invalid, and two were all invalid.
It can be seen that only 20% of the patents involved in Qualcomm are deemed invalid, which is equivalent to nearly 80% of patent litigation, and Apple is at risk of losing the case.
According to relevant information, the valid patents in Qualcomm include: methods and equipment for aggregating and presenting data related to geographical location; Method and equipment for wireless network hybrid positioning; Apparatus and method for linking applications on wireless devices; Circuit with high-density local interconnection structure and its manufacturing method; Switching battery charging system and method; And a low power integrated circuit for analyzing the digitized audio stream.
According to a statement issued by Qualcomm, Qualcomm obtained temporary injunctions from the court in two patents that were found to be valid, namely, "enabling consumers to adjust and reset the size and appearance of photos" and "managing applications through a touch screen when browsing, finding and quitting applications on mobile phones".
It can be said that among the patents involved in Qualcomm, there is a great risk or probability that Apple may lose the case, bear tort liability and be banned from selling some models of mobile phones.
Therefore, it is understandable that seven Apple mobile phones, including iPhone 6S, iPhone 6SPlus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X, were sentenced to immediately stop importing, selling and promising to sell in China.
Effectiveness of the ban: Apple's related mobile phones should stop selling immediately.
The "temporary injunction in litigation" in Qualcomm's statement may be a "behavior preservation" ruling or a "first judgment".
Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the people's court may, on the application of the other party, order the property preservation, order it to do certain acts or prohibit it from doing certain acts when the judgment may be difficult to execute or cause other damage to the parties.
If it is a ruling of the nature of behavior preservation, Apple can file a reconsideration if it refuses to accept it, but according to Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law, "the execution of the ruling will not be stopped during the reconsideration period".
To put it simply, once the temporary ban in Qualcomm's statement is a ruling, the ruling will take effect as soon as it is made. Apple should first stop the infringement, including immediately prohibiting the import, sale or promise to sell the seven mobile phones involved.
According to Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law, when the people's court hears a case, some facts are already clear, and it can make a judgment on that part first.
If it is a "first-instance judgment", because it belongs to the first-instance judgment, then Apple can also file an appeal, which will take effect after the final judgment of the second instance.
Apple's official statement said that China consumers can still buy all types of iPhone products in China, and stressed that they are seeking solutions through legal channels. However, according to Chinese law, the "injunction in litigation" takes effect immediately. If a party refuses to accept the award, it may apply for reconsideration, and the execution of the award will not be suspended during the reconsideration period.
This means that the ban has come into effect for iPhone-related products that have been banned. During this period, it is illegal for Apple to import, sell and promise to sell unauthorized infringing products in China.
As for Apple's claim that the "iOS 12" software version does not involve patent infringement in Qualcomm, it should be pointed out that the ruling made by Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court on the product model has nothing to do with the iOS version. Even if Apple can bypass Qualcomm's patent in the future, it needs to prove this to the court first, and before that, it must stop selling immediately.
In fact, during the trial of the case, Apple put forward this opinion, but the court did not adopt it and still issued an injunction, indicating that the court did not support Apple's statement that the version of iOS 12 did not infringe Qualcomm's patent.
It can be said that at present, China is becoming the "first choice" to solve all kinds of intellectual property disputes. Not only domestic companies, but also many foreign companies, including Apple and Qualcomm, are increasingly settling intellectual property disputes in China.
On the one hand, this shows that the objectivity, neutrality and professionalism of judicial protection of intellectual property rights in China have been recognized by more and more enterprises. On the other hand, domestic strict intellectual property protection policies are also trusted and sought after by more and more companies.
Therefore, under the background of strict intellectual property protection in China, Apple was sentenced to a "temporary injunction" for allegedly infringing Qualcomm's patent rights, which is bound to become a "landmark" case in the process of judicial protection of intellectual property rights in China.
Of course, the long-standing patent dispute between Apple and Qualcomm is expected to be resolved soon.