https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/30/16720964/qualcomm-seeks-iphone-x-ban-in-us
Qualcomm is trying to ban the iPhone X used by AT&T and T-Mobile
23 comments
by Jacob Kastrenakes Nov 30, 2017, 4:33pm EST
Photo by James Bareham / The Verge
Qualcomm and Apple’s tit for tat legal battle continues yet again this week with a series of new filings from Qualcomm, one of which seeks to ban some iPhone X sales in the US.
Three new lawsuits allege that Apple is infringing 16 Qualcomm patents with the iPhone 7, 8, and X, as well as their Plus models. Many of the patents cover technology that improves battery life, but others focus on additional smartphone tech. In one case, Qualcomm says Apple is relying on its patented technology to create the iPhone’s Portrait Mode effect.
Qualcomm already tried to get other iPhones banned
The lawsuits ask for unspecified payments from Apple for the alleged patent infringement and for the court to make Apple stop using those technologies. Qualcomm goes further in a claim with the US International Trade Commission, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune, where it asks for imports of iPhone Xs using modems from its rival, Intel, to the banned, which would prevent the device from being sold on AT&T and T-Mobile (that is, unless Apple started buying modems for those phones from Qualcomm).
In particular, Qualcomm points to the iPhone X’s multitasking interface and its similarities to the interface webOS used to use. Qualcomm apparently now owns patents covering that interface, as well as other technology first developed at Palm. “All of these Palm inventions — owned by Qualcomm — have vastly improved the functionality of mobile devices and the user experience, and all of them are widely found in Apple products without license or permission,” Qualcomm writes in one of its lawsuits.
Qualcomm already filed a series of similar claims against Apple back in July, again asking for payments and for a ban on iPhones. But this week, it’s updating those claims to include the iPhone X, which wasn’t out when the legal battle first began.
The filings were issued yesterday, shortly after Apple filed its own patent infringement lawsuit against Qualcomm. In that suit, Apple said Qualcomm’s behavior was akin to “a common patent troll.”
Qualcomm pointed to its filings when asked for comment. Apple also referred us to yesterday’s filings when asked for comment.
This legal dispute started at the beginning of the year after the Federal Trade Commission accused Qualcomm of anti-competitive behavior. Apple then filed a lawsuit making similar accusations and continued to make those claims in courts around the world. Qualcomm has fired back, and we’ve been watching the volleying play out over the last several months.
These patent lawsuits are more of a sideshow. They’re largely a defensive maneuver for Qualcomm, which has already been fined by regulators in other countries for similar behavior to what it’s now under attack for in the US. The real battle to watch is the one around whether Qualcomm will have to change its overall patent licensing behavior, which could mean the company will earn far less money off the sales of its modems.
https://www.cnet.com/news/qualcomm-apple-iphone-x-7-8-plus-itc-ban-patent-infringement/
Mobile
Qualcomm seeks ban on sales of Intel-based iPhone X in US
Legal filing with ITC is the latest move in a heated patent infringement battle between Apple and its key chip supplier.
Qualcomm wants the US to ban the sale of iPhones that use Intel's modem.
Sarah Tew/CNET
If Qualcomm has its way, it could get even tougher to buy certain iPhone X models.
The chipmaker on Thursday filed a request with the US International Trade Commission to ban the import and sale of certain iPhones that use Intel's modem. Those would include the iPhone X, 8, 8 Plus, 7 and 7 Plus that run on AT&T and T-Mobile. The phones that run on networks from Verizon and Sprint use Qualcomm's modem and wouldn't be included in the ban.
"Apple can import iPhones (regardless of who supplies the modems) that do not infringe the patents asserted in this action, but Apple has no inherent right to infringe Qualcomm's [non-standards essential patents] through the sale of its iPhones," Qualcomm said in its filing. "Preventing such infringement, and thereby rewarding innovation, is the very purpose for which the patent system was designed."
See also
The ITC request is the latest move in Qualcomm and Apple's heated battle over patents. Apple filed suit against Qualcomm for roughly $1 billion in January, saying the maker of wireless chips didn't give fair licensing terms for its technology. Apple wants to pay a lower amount for using Qualcomm technology in its devices. Qualcomm, the world's biggest provider of mobile chips, responded by suing Apple for patent infringement and seeking a ban on iPhone sales. The company maintains that no modern handset -- including the iPhone -- would have been possible without its cellular technologies.
18
iPhone X vs. Pixel 2 photos: Are two cameras better than one?
The two have lobbed other complaints against each other over the past few months. Wednesday, Apple filed another lawsuit against Qualcomm, this time alleging the chipmaker infringed its battery patents. Later Wednesday, Qualcomm filed three new patent infringement complains against Apple related to 16 patents for power management, better bandwidth and other technology. Five of the 16 were included in the new ITC filing.
This isn't the first time Qualcomm has asked the ITC to get involved in its battle with Apple. In August, the ITC said it would investigate Qualcomm's complaint that Apple was illegally using its cellular technology in iPhones powered by modems made by Intel. In that complaint, Qualcomm also sought to ban all iPhones that use Intel's chips.
Going to the ITC is a common tactic when engaging in battles over patents because the prospect of a product ban is often devastating enough to get both sides to the bargaining tables. Tech companies that involve the ITC in their disputes often figure out a resolution before any ban is put into effect.
Qualcomm is trying to ban the iPhone X used by AT&T and T-Mobile
23 comments
by Jacob Kastrenakes Nov 30, 2017, 4:33pm EST
Qualcomm and Apple’s tit for tat legal battle continues yet again this week with a series of new filings from Qualcomm, one of which seeks to ban some iPhone X sales in the US.
Three new lawsuits allege that Apple is infringing 16 Qualcomm patents with the iPhone 7, 8, and X, as well as their Plus models. Many of the patents cover technology that improves battery life, but others focus on additional smartphone tech. In one case, Qualcomm says Apple is relying on its patented technology to create the iPhone’s Portrait Mode effect.
Qualcomm already tried to get other iPhones banned
The lawsuits ask for unspecified payments from Apple for the alleged patent infringement and for the court to make Apple stop using those technologies. Qualcomm goes further in a claim with the US International Trade Commission, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune, where it asks for imports of iPhone Xs using modems from its rival, Intel, to the banned, which would prevent the device from being sold on AT&T and T-Mobile (that is, unless Apple started buying modems for those phones from Qualcomm).
In particular, Qualcomm points to the iPhone X’s multitasking interface and its similarities to the interface webOS used to use. Qualcomm apparently now owns patents covering that interface, as well as other technology first developed at Palm. “All of these Palm inventions — owned by Qualcomm — have vastly improved the functionality of mobile devices and the user experience, and all of them are widely found in Apple products without license or permission,” Qualcomm writes in one of its lawsuits.
Qualcomm already filed a series of similar claims against Apple back in July, again asking for payments and for a ban on iPhones. But this week, it’s updating those claims to include the iPhone X, which wasn’t out when the legal battle first began.
The filings were issued yesterday, shortly after Apple filed its own patent infringement lawsuit against Qualcomm. In that suit, Apple said Qualcomm’s behavior was akin to “a common patent troll.”
Qualcomm pointed to its filings when asked for comment. Apple also referred us to yesterday’s filings when asked for comment.
This legal dispute started at the beginning of the year after the Federal Trade Commission accused Qualcomm of anti-competitive behavior. Apple then filed a lawsuit making similar accusations and continued to make those claims in courts around the world. Qualcomm has fired back, and we’ve been watching the volleying play out over the last several months.
These patent lawsuits are more of a sideshow. They’re largely a defensive maneuver for Qualcomm, which has already been fined by regulators in other countries for similar behavior to what it’s now under attack for in the US. The real battle to watch is the one around whether Qualcomm will have to change its overall patent licensing behavior, which could mean the company will earn far less money off the sales of its modems.
https://www.cnet.com/news/qualcomm-apple-iphone-x-7-8-plus-itc-ban-patent-infringement/
Mobile
Qualcomm seeks ban on sales of Intel-based iPhone X in US
Legal filing with ITC is the latest move in a heated patent infringement battle between Apple and its key chip supplier.
by- Shara Tibken
Qualcomm wants the US to ban the sale of iPhones that use Intel's modem.
Sarah Tew/CNET
If Qualcomm has its way, it could get even tougher to buy certain iPhone X models.
The chipmaker on Thursday filed a request with the US International Trade Commission to ban the import and sale of certain iPhones that use Intel's modem. Those would include the iPhone X, 8, 8 Plus, 7 and 7 Plus that run on AT&T and T-Mobile. The phones that run on networks from Verizon and Sprint use Qualcomm's modem and wouldn't be included in the ban.
"Apple can import iPhones (regardless of who supplies the modems) that do not infringe the patents asserted in this action, but Apple has no inherent right to infringe Qualcomm's [non-standards essential patents] through the sale of its iPhones," Qualcomm said in its filing. "Preventing such infringement, and thereby rewarding innovation, is the very purpose for which the patent system was designed."
See also
- What the Apple-Qualcomm battle means for your next iPhone (FAQ)
- Apple fires back at Qualcomm in lawsuit over battery patents
- Qualcomm accuses Apple of helping Intel with chip software
The ITC request is the latest move in Qualcomm and Apple's heated battle over patents. Apple filed suit against Qualcomm for roughly $1 billion in January, saying the maker of wireless chips didn't give fair licensing terms for its technology. Apple wants to pay a lower amount for using Qualcomm technology in its devices. Qualcomm, the world's biggest provider of mobile chips, responded by suing Apple for patent infringement and seeking a ban on iPhone sales. The company maintains that no modern handset -- including the iPhone -- would have been possible without its cellular technologies.
18
iPhone X vs. Pixel 2 photos: Are two cameras better than one?
The two have lobbed other complaints against each other over the past few months. Wednesday, Apple filed another lawsuit against Qualcomm, this time alleging the chipmaker infringed its battery patents. Later Wednesday, Qualcomm filed three new patent infringement complains against Apple related to 16 patents for power management, better bandwidth and other technology. Five of the 16 were included in the new ITC filing.
This isn't the first time Qualcomm has asked the ITC to get involved in its battle with Apple. In August, the ITC said it would investigate Qualcomm's complaint that Apple was illegally using its cellular technology in iPhones powered by modems made by Intel. In that complaint, Qualcomm also sought to ban all iPhones that use Intel's chips.
Going to the ITC is a common tactic when engaging in battles over patents because the prospect of a product ban is often devastating enough to get both sides to the bargaining tables. Tech companies that involve the ITC in their disputes often figure out a resolution before any ban is put into effect.
