Apple secures ITC ban on Samsung products

The International Trade Commission (ITC) has banned Samsung from importing certain products found to infringe two Apple patents, days after the US government vetoed a banning order Apple on products.

Apple’s affected patents are called “Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics” and “Audio I/O headset plug and plug detection circuitry”.

The August 9 ban, which covers unspecified mobile phones, media players and tablets, will come into force after 60 days of the ruling unless vetoed by the US government.

Apple accused Samsung of infringing seven patents in an August 2011 complaint. Two months later, administrative law judge Thomas Pender ruled that Samsung had infringed four patents, but dismissed the remaining claims.

In January, the ITC asked for that initial ruling to be reviewed entirely, but first requested a limited review of some of the claims. After those claims were amended in a second ruling, the commission then asked for that decision to be further assessed, and conducted a thorough review of the case starting in May.

Now, the ITC has found that Samsung’s products infringe claims within two Apple patents (‘949 and ‘501), but overturned Pender’s earlier decision that Samsung infringed two other patents.

The import ban does not apply to Samsung’s products designed to avoid infringement – known as “designarounds”.

An Apple spokesman said the ITC has "joined courts around the world in Japan, Korea, Germany, [the] Netherlands and California by standing up for innovation and rejecting Samsung's blatant copying of Apple's products".

A Samsung spokesman said the company was disappointed by the ruling but that “Apple has been prevented from trying to use its overbroad design patents to achieve a monopoly on rectangles and rounded corners”.

The ruling is the latest in a string of related disputes between the companies, the most recent coming this month when the US government vetoed a ban on Apple products held to infringe a Samsung patent. The government said it was concerned about the effect of the ban on “competitive conditions” in the US economy and the impact on consumers.

That case dealt with a standards-essential patent – one supposed to be licensed on fair reasonable and non-discriminatory grounds – and some lawyers were surprised when the ITC originally banned industry-standard products.

Because the patents in the latest case are not SEP, said Bob Stoll, partner at law firm Drinker Biddle in Washington, DC, the ban will “probably not” be overturned by the Obama administration.

The commercial impact of the ban, said Steve Auvil, partner at Squire Sanders LLP, may depend on the success of Samsung’s redesigned products.

“Observers will want to know whether Samsung’s redesigned products will have the same consumer appeal and cost the same as the products found to be infringing. The answer to these questions is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.”

He added: “Both sides are claiming a battle victory, with Samsung’s spin being that Apple failed to prove infringement of its design patents for the iPhone and the ban having little effect because it redesigned the infringing products.”

Stoll said there needs to be a mechanism in place that makes it easier for companies to settle such cases outside of court.

“This is a blood feud that is hurting both companies and filling the pockets of attorneys. I wish we could have an arbitration or mediation mechanism allowing them to reach agreement on a worldwide basis.”

There is continuing litigation between the companies in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is ruling on a judge’s decision to deny Apple an injunction against several Samsung products.