Days after President Obama vetoed an import ban on some Apple products in which Samsung suffered more than $1 billion loss, here comes another blow which if President Obama doesn’t veto in 60 days, will take its course.
On Friday, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled a high-profile case against Samsung’s infringement on two Apple patents on its gadgets related to head phone jacks and touchscreen operations.
The commission’s verdict to ban importing, distributing and selling of some Samsung devices – though unclear which models – that infringe on certain claims will probably fuel the long-running clash and reprehension from South Korea.
Kristine Huguet of Apple said in an interview with Reuters, "The ITC has joined courts around the world in Japan, Korea, Germany, Netherlands and California by standing up for innovation and rejecting Samsung's blatant copying of Apple's products,” so the decision made everyone in Apple ecstatic.
On the other hand, accusations on discrimination after having so recently interfered in the Apple case could be stimulated with this ban issues with Samsung devices.
Adam Yates, spokesperson of Samsung, released a statement as reported by Reuters, “We are disappointed that the ITC has issued an exclusion order based on two of Apple's patents. However, Apple has been stopped from trying to use its overbroad design patents to achieve a monopoly on rectangles and rounded corners.”
However, the dissimilarity between the cases is that “standard essential” patents was said to have been infringed in Apple. These patents cover technology that is very important to follow with the market standards. In the latest case, non-essential and commercial patents were infringed.
An appeal to a lower court ruling is filed by Apple. It is about Apple’s request to enduringly ban Samsung’s older-model phones.
The present case lasted for two years.
Attorney William Lee of Apple acknowledged that “the company would seek a so-called contempt proceeding to go after newer Samsung phones if their injunction request was approved.
A written statement of the Courts of Appeal about the matter is believed to be released sooner or later.
