Qualcomm finally made Apple suffer.
A few days ago, Qualcomm announced 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 the infringement of Qualcomm's two patents involved, including prohibiting the import, sale and promised sale of unauthorized products in China. The related product models include iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X.
As for the above temporary ban, Apple stated that all iphones currently sold are pre-installed with iOS 12 system, which does not infringe 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 how far it will take effect. In addition, they are puzzled by Apple's claim that the pre-installed version of IOS12 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?
There are constant disputes: Apple v. Qualcomm Monopoly, and Qualcomm v. Apple's arrears infringement
As we all know, the conflict between Apple and Qualcomm caused by patent disputes can be traced back to the beginning of 217.
On January 2th, 217, 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 the company $1 billion by unfair patent licensing.
Subsequently, Apple filed lawsuits 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 11th, 217, Qualcomm began to take a counter-attack strategy. First, it counterclaimed Apple in the United States, and then, because Apple's foundry stopped paying patent license fees, it sued four foundries, including Foxconn and Compal, for Apple to manufacture its iPhone and iPad sold worldwide.
After both parties have taken certain litigation measures, it seems that the progress of business negotiations between the two parties is not smooth.
in October p>217, because Qualcomm did not sue Apple for infringing its standard essential patents, Apple instead sued Qualcomm to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to confirm that its iPhone and iPad products did not infringe Qualcomm's three communication technology standard essential patents.
since November p>217, Qualcomm has launched a full-scale counterattack against Apple's alleged patent infringement in the China market, and has filed no less than 16 patent infringement lawsuits in Beijing, Fuzhou, Qingdao, Nanjing, Guangzhou and other courts.
Patents involved: Only two patents in Qualcomm were all 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) for the patents involved in Qualcomm's lawsuit against Apple for infringement.
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, some were invalid, and two were all invalid.
It can be seen that Qualcomm's patents involved in the case were all found to be ineffective by only 2%, which is equivalent to the risk of losing nearly 8% of patent lawsuits.
according to relevant information, the patents that Qualcomm has been awarded are: method and equipment for aggregating and presenting data associated with geographical location; method and equipment for wireless network hybrid positioning; equipment and method for linking applications on wireless devices; circuit with high-density local interconnection structure and its manufacturing method; switched battery charging system and method; and low-power integrated circuit for analyzing digitized audio streams.
according to the statement issued by Qualcomm, Qualcomm has obtained the temporary injunction support from the court in two patents that were judged to be valid, namely, "enabling consumers to adjust and reset the size and appearance of photos, and" managing applications through the touch screen when browsing, finding and quitting applications on mobile phones ".
It can be said that among the patents involved in Qualcomm, the risk or probability that Apple may lose the case, bear tort liability and be banned from selling some models of mobile phones is very high.
therefore, it is understandable that seven models of 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 injunction: Apple should immediately stop selling the mobile phones involved in the case
The "temporary injunction against Qualcomm" in the statement may be a ruling of "behavior preservation" or a "first judgment".
article 1 of the civil procedure law stipulates that the people's court may, upon the application of the other party, order the property to be preserved, order it to do certain acts or prohibit it from doing certain acts in a case that the judgment may be difficult to execute or cause other damages to the other party.
If it is a ruling with the nature of behavior preservation, Apple may file a reconsideration if it refuses to accept it, but according to Article 18 of the Civil Procedure Law, "the execution of the ruling will not be stopped during the reconsideration period".
In short, once the "temporary injunction in litigation" 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 seven models of mobile phones involved.
according to article 153 of the civil procedure law, when a people's court tries a case, some of the facts are already clear, and it can make a judgment on that part first.
If it's a "first judgment", because it's a first-instance judgment, then Apple can still file an appeal, which will not take effect until 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 China's law, the "injunction in litigation" takes effect immediately. If the party refuses to accept the ruling, it can apply for reconsideration, and the execution of the ruling will not be stopped during the reconsideration.
This means that the ban on the sale of iPhone-related products has come into effect. 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 software version of "iOS12" does not involve patent infringement in Qualcomm, it should be pointed out that the Fuzhou intermediate people's court ruled on the product model, which 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, but still issued an injunction, indicating that the court did not support Apple's statement that the version of iOS12 did not infringe Qualcomm's patent.
It can be said that at present, China is becoming the "preferred place" for solving all kinds of intellectual property disputes. Not only domestic companies, but also many foreign companies, including Apple and Qualcomm, are increasingly settling their intellectual property disputes in China.
on the one hand, it shows that the objectivity, neutrality and professionalism of judicial protection of intellectual property rights in China are recognized by more and more companies; on the other hand, the domestic policy of strict intellectual property protection is 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 ban" for allegedly infringing Qualcomm's patent rights, which is bound to become a "milestone" case in the judicial protection process of intellectual property rights in China.
Of course, the long-standing patent dispute between Apple and Qualcomm may also be expected to be resolved quickly.