Samsung Files ITC Complaint Against iPhone, iPad

| News

Samsung filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission on Tuesday in an effort to block the import of the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad into the United States. The filing follows an ongoing patent infringement legal battle between Apple and Samsung over mobile devices.

Apple and Samsung kiss and make up? Not likely.Samsung takes its fight with Apple to the ITC

The filing specifically mentions Apple, along with a product list that includes “Mobile Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computer.”

Florian Mueller has been following the patent battle at Foss Patents.

“The combination of the accused products and the defendant means that Samsung is asking for an import ban against the iPhone, iPad and iPod,” he said on his Web site. “If the ITC agrees to investigate such a complaint (which is pretty certain to happen here), a final decision is reached within 16 to 18 months.”

Apple and Samsung have been locked in a legal battle over mobile device patents for several months. Apple filed a U.S. lawsuit in April alleging Samsung was copying the iPhone design, and Samsung responded by filing patent infringement suits against Apple in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

Samsung later filed a similar case in the U.S. Apple followed up by broadening its claims against Samsung, and was granted access to several of the company’s products as part of its legal strategy.

Apple has not commented on Samsung’s ITC filing.



So, basically Samsung is admitting that it is totally willing to give up ALL of Apple’s business for chips, displays, etc., to take them on head to head instead. Should be interesting to watch play out. That’s a hell of a gamble to take. If the judge rules they copied all of Apple’s devices, then Samsung could be out of business REALLY soon.



Agreed, Tiger. Samsung it taking one hell of a gamble here, especially given the patent Apple was recently awarded on the iPhone.


Steve has a long memory and possibly a slight streak of mean. I agree it is a gargantuan gamble. What is Samsung thinking? Comeuppance has reared its head on affronts far slighter than this.

Samsung’s gambit might make a very interesting topic for a senior writer from this site to tackle.


Samsung recognizes that it lost Apple as a long-term customers once it decided to become a principal competitor in the tablet and smartphone as an Android OEM.  Samsung has already made the decision that its prospects as a competitor in smart mobile devices, as opposed to simply being one of Apple’s suppliers, is the more lucrative course.  If Samsung is wrong in that calculation, the financial results will be bitter.  But it has done it now, and the die is cast, as there already signs that Apple is in the process of replacing Samsung as a supplier for all critical parts, at least where that can be done. 

What Samsung is most likely trying to accomplish with its ITC action is to gain leverage against Apple with either an outright ban on the import of the iPhone, iPad, and/or iPod Touch or simply establish a stronger negotiating position.

But Apple now has a brand new patent of very broad scope to deploy against Samsung, both at the ITC and in its U.S. court case versus Samsung and in some of its international court cases against Samsung.  Shall Apple soon deploy that patent?  It is a very complex decision and not the obvious yeah go for it decision that it may appear to be.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

The first time the ITC sides enough with one of these companies to ban a popular tech brand or product will simply be the last. Not going to happen. The ITC is an anachronistic relic from the First Great Depression era which has seen itself gain importance beyond toaster ovens and cheap kids’ toys because tech manufacturers have moved production off-shore since the early 1990s. For now, the ITC is really a non-binding arbitration board for the tech companies to practice sparring and decide if they really want to go to court. See Apple/Nokia as the prime example for the ITC’s role in helping resolve these disputes.

Seriously, can’t you all imagine FDR rolling over in his wheelchair at the thought of a Korean company taking an American company to the ITC?


But Apple now has a brand new patent of very broad scope to deploy against Samsung,

... Are you talking about the patent Apple just had granted for scrolling an in-line embedded object inside of a webpage?

Yeah, cause that wasn’t part of HTTP 4.0 standards, I really wonder how the USPTO can get away with granting patents on standards that are 15 years old…


Ok, I’m saying this in print.

All true Brad. All true!


Dear daemon:  I think that you are saying that there is some prior art that voids the patentability of Apple’s No. 7,966,578 patent.  If so, the entire mobile smart device industry will be delighted to have you present that prior art to the USPTO.  However, I suspect that whatever is in HTTP 4.0 won’t be prior art because, inter alia, assuming that the HTTP 4.0’s specification is patentable subject matter, it is another type of invention with completely different claims that doesn’t read in any way on patent No. 7,966,578.  That is, if HTTP 4.0 is patentable software, it is an app, not a multitouch UI for a device and can’t function as a multitouch UI or as any element of a multitouch UI for a device. 

But if HTTP 4.0 does prefigure Apple’s invention, Patent No. 7,966,578, and if Apple’s exceptional patent counsel missed that in their prior art search, Samsung et al. wants you to run, not walk, to the USPTO with your newly revealed prior art.


Nemo, HTTP is a protocol.


Dear daemon:  And, as a protocol, HTTP isn’t patentable subject matter, so it isn’t prior art, and Apple needn’t worry about it interfering with its No. 7,966,578 patent.  I am glad that you cleared that up.


Prior art of a frame scrolling inside a stationary frame:
The text box at the bottom of the forum is the prior art.


Dear daemon:  And could that function as the UI for multitouch computing device?  If not, it is not prior art.

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account