Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the zero-bs-crm domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /homepages/30/d4297336883/htdocs/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the health-check domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /homepages/30/d4297336883/htdocs/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121
Apple vs Samsung: ITC Judge Wants Samsung to Post a Bond Of 88% of its U.S. Smartphone Sales

samsungvsapple

Back in October, Judge Pender preliminary ruling found that  Samsung has infringed four of  Apple patentsMueller of Fosspatent fame, has reported that a  redacted full-length version of Judge Pender’s initial determination and recommendation on remedy and bond has been posted on the ITC electronic system. The publication apparently does not make great reading for Samsung’s loyalists.

According Mueller, Samsung could face the following sanctions if the U.S. trade agency adopts Judge Penders recommendations, these are:
  • a U.S. import ban that would enter into effect after the 60-day Presidential review period following a final ITC decision,
  • a simultaneous cease-and-desist order that would prohibit the sale of any commercially significant quantities of the imported infringing accused products in the United States (this remedy was denied against HTC), and
  • the requirement to post a bond of 88% of the value of all mobile phones, 32.5% of the value of all media players, and 37.6% of the value of all tablet computers found to infringe Apple’s patents-in-suit during the Presidential review period.

Mueller highlighted, that Samsung was hoping for a 4.9% royalty rate as an appropriate bond amount.

“Judge Pender adopted Apple’s proposed methodology and rates, based on a price differential analysis,” Mueller writes. “The ITC staff supports that approach in principle and is fine with the bond rates for tablets and media players, but says that the 88% rate for mobile phones is based on too high a price differential between the two companies’ products because Samsung sells significant quantities of phones at a much lower price point, such as $200 (compared to a $600 non-subsidized iPhone), and the ITC staff believes that those lower-cost phones don’t really compete with Apple’s offerings and shouldn’t be taken into account for the purpose of a price differential analysis.”

Mueller also noted that it might not be all bad news for Samsung. Judge Pender cleared various Samsung workarounds, which if successfully implemented, would result in no import ban on Samsung’s products in the US.

Source: Fosspatent

By Staff

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.