Samsung Electronics says it has been granted a hearing next year in a US appeals court, reviving the prospects of punitive measures against Apple for alleged patent infringement, despite a veto issued on Saturday by US President Barack Obama.
Mr Obama vetoed a June ruling by the US International Trade Commission banning a range of Apple devices, which the court ruled had infringed a patent held by Samsung, from being imported into the US. The announcement of his decision cited concerns about “the effect on competitive conditions in the US economy and the effect on US consumers”.
But Samsung said yesterday it had filed a court appeal on July 18th against the original ITC finding, because the ITC ruled that Apple had infringed only one patent, rather than finding in favour of Samsung on all four patents it had claimed were violated.
The appeal was filed at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, Samsung said, adding that an oral hearing was scheduled for next year.
The case covers a range of older Apple devices, but does not address the newest versions of the iPhone or iPad.
Adnaan Ahmad, an analyst at Berenberg Bank, said investors were increasingly ignoring the long-running patent wars between technology companies including Apple and Samsung. “The fact that margins are being questioned, growth is being questioned in the mid to long term, these are much bigger issues for the companies,” he said.
Samsung’s complaint deals with the three patents that the ITC said in June Apple did not infringe.
One covers technology enabling smartphone users to dial a number shown on a webpage. A second allows users to read documents on their device. The third, which increases the reliability of high-speed data transmission, is a standard-essential patent, meaning the technology is so important that Samsung is required by law to license it to manufacturers for a reasonable fee.
This requirement lies at the heart of the vetoed ITC decision, which accepted Samsung’s argument that Apple had refused to negotiate a licensing agreement for a standard-essential patent despite making use of the technology.
Apple claimed Samsung had demanded an unreasonably high licensing fee.
– (Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013)
