|
In a statement, Apple said 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." Last year, a federal court in San Francisco ruled that Samsung owed Apple $1 billion in damages for infringing on non-essential Apple patents. But the judge refused to impose an import ban on Samsung phones and later struck $450 million from the verdict, saying the jurors miscalculated. An appeals court in Washington heard arguments in that case Friday, but has not issued a ruling. In June, the ITC ruled that Apple violated one of Samsung's patents. That patent is deemed to be a "standards-essential patent," meaning holders are supposed to license them to all companies on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. U.S. courts have ruled that such patents cannot be the basis for import bans. But the ITC, which is an administrative agency and not a court, follows a different standard than the courts. The Obama administration wants the ITC to adhere to the same principles and has recommended that Congress limit the ITC's ability to impose import bans in these cases.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2013 The Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.