[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]美国国际贸易委员会（ITC）于2013年6月4日（当地时间）作出最终判决，裁定美国苹果的移动终端侵犯了韩国三星电子的专利。 [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] 存在侵权问题的是美国专利号为“7,706,348”的专利（名称为“CDMA移动通讯系统中编码/解码传输格式组合指示器的装置和方法”，2004年12月7日申请，2010年4月27日获得专利），涉及CDMA通信系统中的信号传输规格。ITC认为苹果的部分无线通信设备及平板电脑侵犯了该专利的75～76以及82～84申诉项，并下达了禁止向美国进口以及在美国销售的限定排除令和禁止令。 [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] ITC从2011年8月1日开始按照三星的申诉调查苹果。最初三星认为其五项专利受到侵犯，但其中一项被驳回，ITC决定对其余四项专利展开调查。ITC行政法官在初次调查结束后，于2012年9月14日做出了苹果并未侵犯四项专利的初步判决。 [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] 2012年11月19日，ITC决定重新裁定原来的初步判决。在详细审查了两公司重新提交的资料之后，做出了此次的最终判决。另外，三星同时还认为苹果侵犯了其第“7,486,644”号、第“7,450,114”号及第“6,771,980”号专利，但此次未得到认可。 [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] 限定排除令及禁止令的对象是苹果向美国AT&T公司提供的“iPhone 4”、“iPhone 3GS”、“Phone 3”、“iPad（3G版）”及“iPad 2（3G版）”。ITC的最终判决结果将送呈美国总统，在总统审查期限过后生效。 [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] 苹果仍然可以在60天的总统审查期内进口并销售此次判决的对象产品。另外，还可以向联邦巡回上诉法院上诉（[/font][color=#02e5b][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]美国TNW[/font][/color][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]）。（特约撰稿人：铃木 英子，NEWSFRONT） [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]英文发布资料：[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES,
INCLUDING WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION DEVICES,
PORTABLE MUSIC AND DATA
PROCESSING DEVICES, AND TABLET
COMPUTERS
Inv. No. 337-TA-794
NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION’S FINAL DETERMINATION FINDING A
VIOLATION OF SECTION 337; ISSUANCE OF A LIMITED EXCLUSION ORDER
AND A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER; TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a
violation of section 337 in this investigation and has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting
respondent Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”), from importing wireless
communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, and tablet computers that
infringe claims 75-76 and 82-84 of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 (“the ’348 patent”). The
Commission has also issued a cease and desist order against Apple prohibiting the sale and
distribution within the United States of articles that infringe claims 75-76 and 82-84 of the ’348
patent. The Commission has found no violation based on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,486,644 (“the ’644
patent”), 7,450,114 (“the ’114 patent”), and 6,771,980 (“the ’980 patent”). The Commission’s
determination is final, and the investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone
(202) 205-2661. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
August 1, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea and
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “Samsung”). 2
76 Fed. Reg. 45860 (Aug. 1, 2011). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale
for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic
devices, including wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices,
and tablet computers, by reason of infringement of various U.S. patents. The notice of
investigation names Apple as the only respondent. The patents remaining in the investigation are
the ’348, ’644, ’114, and ’980 patents. The complaint also alleged infringement of U.S. Patent
No. 6,879,843, but the investigation with respect to that patent was previously terminated based
on withdrawn allegations.
On September 14, 2012, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued his final
initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of section 337 based on the four patents
remaining at issue. The ALJ determined that the ’348, ’644, and ’980 patents are valid but not
infringed and that the ’114 patent is both invalid and not infringed. The ALJ further determined
that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement was satisfied with respect to the
remaining asserted patents, but that the technical prong was not satisfied for any of those patents.
On October 1, 2012, complainant Samsung and the Commission investigative attorney
(“IA”) filed petitions for review of the ID, while Apple filed a contingent petition for review.
On November 19, 2012, the Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety.
77 Fed. Reg. 70464 (Nov. 26, 2012). The Commission issued a public notice requesting written
submissions from the parties and the public on various topics, many of which concerned the
Commission’s authority to issue a remedy for the importation of articles that infringe patents that
the patent owner has stated it will license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
(“FRAND”) terms. Other topics concerned patent issues specific to this investigation. The
Commission received written submissions from Samsung, Apple, and the IA addressing all of
the Commission’s questions. In response to the FRAND-related topics posed to the public, the
Commission received responses from the following: Association for Competitive Technology;
Business Software Alliance; Ericsson Inc.; GTW Associates; Hewlett Packard Company;
Innovation Alliance; Intel Corporation; Motorola Mobility LLC; Qualcomm Incorporated;
Research In Motion Corporation; and Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
On March 13, 2013, the Commission issued another public notice requesting written
submissions from the parties and the public on various additional topics, including some
FRAND-related topics. 78 Fed. Reg. 16865 (March 19, 2013). The Commission received
written submissions from Samsung, Apple, and the IA addressing all of the Commission’s
questions. In response to the FRAND-related topics posed to the public, the Commission
received responses from the following: Association for Competitive Technology; Business
Software Alliance; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Hewlett Packard Company; Innovation Alliance; Micron
Technology, Inc.; and Retail Industry Leaders Association.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and
submissions from the parties and from the public, the Commission has determined that Samsung
has proven a violation of section 337 based on articles that infringe claims 75-76 and 82-84 of
the ’348 patent. The Commission has determined to modify the ALJ’s construction of certain
terms in the asserted claims of the ’348 patent, including “controller,” “10 bit TFCI 3
information,” and “puncturing.” Under the modified constructions, the Commission has
determined that Samsung has proven that the accused iPhone 4 (AT&T models); iPhone 3GS
(AT&T models); iPhone 3 (AT&T models); iPad 3G (AT&T models); and iPad 2 3G (AT&T
models) infringe the asserted claims of the ’348 patent. The Commission has further determined
that the properly construed claims have not been proven by Apple to be invalid and that Samsung
has proven that a domestic industry exists in the United States with respect to the ‘348 patent.
The Commission has determined that Apple failed to prove an affirmative defense based on
Samsung’s FRAND declarations.
The Commission has determined that Samsung has not proven a violation based on
alleged infringement of the ’644, ’980, and ’114 patents. With some modifications to the ALJ’s
analysis, the Commission has determined that the asserted claims of the ’644 and ’980 patents
are valid but not infringed and that the asserted claims of the ’114 patent are not infringed and
are invalid. The Commission has further determined that Samsung did not prove a domestic
industry exists in the United States relating to articles protected by the ’644, ’980, and ’114
patents.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order
and a cease and desist order prohibiting Apple from importing into the United States or selling or
distributing within the United States wireless communication devices, portable music and data
processing devices, and tablet computers that infringe claims 75-76 and 82-84 of the ’348 patent.
The Commission has determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1)
and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order.
The Commission has determined that Samsung’s FRAND declarations do not preclude that
remedy.
Finally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of zero percent of the
entered value is required to permit temporary importation during the period of Presidential
review (19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)) of wireless communication devices, portable music and data
processing devices, and tablet computers that are subject to the order. The Commission’s order
and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the
day of their issuance.
Commissioner Pinkert dissents on public interest grounds from the determination to issue
an exclusion order and cease and desist order. 4
The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Acting Secretary to the Commission
Issued: June 4, 2013
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] 存在侵权问题的是美国专利号为“7,706,348”的专利（名称为“CDMA移动通讯系统中编码/解码传输格式组合指示器的装置和方法”，2004年12月7日申请，2010年4月27日获得专利），涉及CDMA通信系统中的信号传输规格。ITC认为苹果的部分无线通信设备及平板电脑侵犯了该专利的75～76以及82～84申诉项，并下达了禁止向美国进口以及在美国销售的限定排除令和禁止令。 [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] ITC从2011年8月1日开始按照三星的申诉调查苹果。最初三星认为其五项专利受到侵犯，但其中一项被驳回，ITC决定对其余四项专利展开调查。ITC行政法官在初次调查结束后，于2012年9月14日做出了苹果并未侵犯四项专利的初步判决。 [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] 2012年11月19日，ITC决定重新裁定原来的初步判决。在详细审查了两公司重新提交的资料之后，做出了此次的最终判决。另外，三星同时还认为苹果侵犯了其第“7,486,644”号、第“7,450,114”号及第“6,771,980”号专利，但此次未得到认可。 [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] 限定排除令及禁止令的对象是苹果向美国AT&T公司提供的“iPhone 4”、“iPhone 3GS”、“Phone 3”、“iPad（3G版）”及“iPad 2（3G版）”。ITC的最终判决结果将送呈美国总统，在总统审查期限过后生效。 [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial] 苹果仍然可以在60天的总统审查期内进口并销售此次判决的对象产品。另外，还可以向联邦巡回上诉法院上诉（[/font][color=#02e5b][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]美国TNW[/font][/color][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]）。（特约撰稿人：铃木 英子，NEWSFRONT） [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]
[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]英文发布资料：[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES,
INCLUDING WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION DEVICES,
PORTABLE MUSIC AND DATA
PROCESSING DEVICES, AND TABLET
COMPUTERS
Inv. No. 337-TA-794
NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION’S FINAL DETERMINATION FINDING A
VIOLATION OF SECTION 337; ISSUANCE OF A LIMITED EXCLUSION ORDER
AND A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER; TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a
violation of section 337 in this investigation and has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting
respondent Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”), from importing wireless
communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, and tablet computers that
infringe claims 75-76 and 82-84 of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 (“the ’348 patent”). The
Commission has also issued a cease and desist order against Apple prohibiting the sale and
distribution within the United States of articles that infringe claims 75-76 and 82-84 of the ’348
patent. The Commission has found no violation based on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,486,644 (“the ’644
patent”), 7,450,114 (“the ’114 patent”), and 6,771,980 (“the ’980 patent”). The Commission’s
determination is final, and the investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone
(202) 205-2661. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
August 1, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea and
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “Samsung”). 2
76 Fed. Reg. 45860 (Aug. 1, 2011). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale
for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic
devices, including wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices,
and tablet computers, by reason of infringement of various U.S. patents. The notice of
investigation names Apple as the only respondent. The patents remaining in the investigation are
the ’348, ’644, ’114, and ’980 patents. The complaint also alleged infringement of U.S. Patent
No. 6,879,843, but the investigation with respect to that patent was previously terminated based
on withdrawn allegations.
On September 14, 2012, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued his final
initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of section 337 based on the four patents
remaining at issue. The ALJ determined that the ’348, ’644, and ’980 patents are valid but not
infringed and that the ’114 patent is both invalid and not infringed. The ALJ further determined
that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement was satisfied with respect to the
remaining asserted patents, but that the technical prong was not satisfied for any of those patents.
On October 1, 2012, complainant Samsung and the Commission investigative attorney
(“IA”) filed petitions for review of the ID, while Apple filed a contingent petition for review.
On November 19, 2012, the Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety.
77 Fed. Reg. 70464 (Nov. 26, 2012). The Commission issued a public notice requesting written
submissions from the parties and the public on various topics, many of which concerned the
Commission’s authority to issue a remedy for the importation of articles that infringe patents that
the patent owner has stated it will license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
(“FRAND”) terms. Other topics concerned patent issues specific to this investigation. The
Commission received written submissions from Samsung, Apple, and the IA addressing all of
the Commission’s questions. In response to the FRAND-related topics posed to the public, the
Commission received responses from the following: Association for Competitive Technology;
Business Software Alliance; Ericsson Inc.; GTW Associates; Hewlett Packard Company;
Innovation Alliance; Intel Corporation; Motorola Mobility LLC; Qualcomm Incorporated;
Research In Motion Corporation; and Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
On March 13, 2013, the Commission issued another public notice requesting written
submissions from the parties and the public on various additional topics, including some
FRAND-related topics. 78 Fed. Reg. 16865 (March 19, 2013). The Commission received
written submissions from Samsung, Apple, and the IA addressing all of the Commission’s
questions. In response to the FRAND-related topics posed to the public, the Commission
received responses from the following: Association for Competitive Technology; Business
Software Alliance; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Hewlett Packard Company; Innovation Alliance; Micron
Technology, Inc.; and Retail Industry Leaders Association.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and
submissions from the parties and from the public, the Commission has determined that Samsung
has proven a violation of section 337 based on articles that infringe claims 75-76 and 82-84 of
the ’348 patent. The Commission has determined to modify the ALJ’s construction of certain
terms in the asserted claims of the ’348 patent, including “controller,” “10 bit TFCI 3
information,” and “puncturing.” Under the modified constructions, the Commission has
determined that Samsung has proven that the accused iPhone 4 (AT&T models); iPhone 3GS
(AT&T models); iPhone 3 (AT&T models); iPad 3G (AT&T models); and iPad 2 3G (AT&T
models) infringe the asserted claims of the ’348 patent. The Commission has further determined
that the properly construed claims have not been proven by Apple to be invalid and that Samsung
has proven that a domestic industry exists in the United States with respect to the ‘348 patent.
The Commission has determined that Apple failed to prove an affirmative defense based on
Samsung’s FRAND declarations.
The Commission has determined that Samsung has not proven a violation based on
alleged infringement of the ’644, ’980, and ’114 patents. With some modifications to the ALJ’s
analysis, the Commission has determined that the asserted claims of the ’644 and ’980 patents
are valid but not infringed and that the asserted claims of the ’114 patent are not infringed and
are invalid. The Commission has further determined that Samsung did not prove a domestic
industry exists in the United States relating to articles protected by the ’644, ’980, and ’114
patents.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order
and a cease and desist order prohibiting Apple from importing into the United States or selling or
distributing within the United States wireless communication devices, portable music and data
processing devices, and tablet computers that infringe claims 75-76 and 82-84 of the ’348 patent.
The Commission has determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1)
and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order.
The Commission has determined that Samsung’s FRAND declarations do not preclude that
remedy.
Finally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of zero percent of the
entered value is required to permit temporary importation during the period of Presidential
review (19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)) of wireless communication devices, portable music and data
processing devices, and tablet computers that are subject to the order. The Commission’s order
and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the
day of their issuance.
Commissioner Pinkert dissents on public interest grounds from the determination to issue
an exclusion order and cease and desist order. 4
The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Acting Secretary to the Commission
Issued: June 4, 2013
[/font]
