Will Samsung Sales Be Preserved By White House ITC Ban Veto?

The battle continues
After the US Trade Representative (USTR) vetoed an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on certain Apple products that the ITC determined infringed upon Samsung patents (read more here), many Katfans sniffed a whiff of American protectionism. 

The saga continued on Friday, when the ITC similarly imposed a ban on Samsung products that infringe certain Apple patents, including a patent related to the finger-swipe motion. 

A spokesman for Apple expressed satisfaction with the ITC ruling against Samsung, telling the Wall Street Journal:
"With today's decision, 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. Protecting real innovation is what the patent system should be about."
The USTR will now have sixty days to decide whether to veto the ITC ban or to let it stand.  There will surely be pressure on the USTR to ensure that there is no hint of unfairness leveled against a foreign company so soon after it acted to protect the sales of a domestic company.  On the other hand, the Apple patents at issue are not considered to be “standards-essential patents”, which the patent owner must offer under license to competitors on “terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’)”.  If the USTR doesn't consider the Apple patents to be SEPs, it is likely to let the ITC ruling stand. 

Regardless of the outcome, Samsung doesn't seem too concerned, noting, "[w]e have already taken measures to ensure that all of our products will continue to be available in the United States".  Indeed, Samsung has altered the technology embedded into newer products so that they do not infringe Apple's patents.  The ITC ban would not affect the sale of the newer, non-infringing products.
Will Samsung Sales Be Preserved By White House ITC Ban Veto? Will Samsung Sales Be Preserved By White House ITC Ban Veto? Reviewed by Miri Frankel on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Over-ruling the original (anti-Apple) ITC ruling does have consequences. At the moment US interests are best served by enforcing IP rights globally and by promoting the 'moral rightness' of that stance. Ignoring IP decisions of its own tribunals will undermine its general strategy at a time when other nations (India, China, Brazil) are asserting themselves more.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.