US to BAN iPhone? Not hardly!

Recommended, yes and NO:
…on CERTAIN devices imported from China, final decision expected in July – the judge confirmed (two) of Qualcomm’s claims and rejected others in the complaint.

Seeking Alpha knows how to scare readers: U.S. trade court recommends iPhone ban.

Mar. 26, 2019 2:06 PM SA Editor Brandy Betz.

    • Original post: A U.S. trade court rules that Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) infringed on a Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) patent and recommends an import ban on some iPhone models.

  • Bloomberg’s headline properly adds the word “some”

    Bloomberg: Apple Infringes Qualcomm Patent; Judge Recommends Ban on Some iPhones

    …Apple Inc. infringes a Qualcomm Inc. patent and some imported iPhones should be blocked from the U.S. as a result, a U.S. trade judge said in one of two cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ITC Judge MaryJoan McNamara said she would be recommending an import ban on certain model iPhones, which are made in China, according to a notice posted on the Washington agency’s electronic docket. The judge found no violation of two other Qualcomm patents in the case. The judge’s findings are subject to review by the full commission….

    US International Trade Commission

    • Administrative Law Judge Mary Joan McNamara (March 26, 2019)
    • I have found that Complainant, Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”), has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), has violated subsection (b) of Section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile electronic devices containing processing components.

    • I have found that Apple has infringed asserted claim 1, but not asserted claim 8, of U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ‘674 patent”). I have found that claims 1 and 8 ofthe ‘674 patent are valid.

    • I have found that Apple has not infringed asserted claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 (“the ‘356 patent”). While Apple’s accused products satisfy these claims, I have found that claims 1 and 17 of the ‘356 patent are invalid

    This entry was posted in QA. Bookmark the permalink.