As the Apple vs Samsung legal battles continue, the US International Trade Commission has ruled that Samsung can no longer import a number of its mobile products into the country.
While it was found that a selection of Samsung’s smartphone and tablet products have infringed on two Apple held patents, the US judged ruled in Samsung’s favour on four other counts, saving the likes of the Samsung Galaxy S2 and Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0 from further sales bans.
Although the ITC ruling has at present failed to list the full range of Samsung branded products that are being banned from sale and being imported to the US, the regulatory body stated that Apple had failed to prove that its leading rival had infringed on a patent surrounding audio jack circuitry.
With a US sales ban on the iPhone and iPad having recently been overturned by President Barack Obama, Samsung will have a 60-day period of presidential review before the nationwide sales ban is fully enforced. However, in order to make use of this two month sales period, the Korean company will have to pay 1.25 per cent of the “entire value” of the potential fine.
Despite the potential for an overruling, Apple has stated that the International Trade Commission ruling sees the ITC join other courts in “standing up for innovation and rejecting Samsung’s blatant copying of Apple’s products.”
Understandably Samsung is less boyant by the ITC decision stating that it has “already taken measures” to ensure its products remain on sale in America.
Despite its agrevances at the two part sales ban, on the four patent disputes which were thrown out, a Samsung spokesperson stated the company is happy that: “Apple has been stopped from trying to use its overbroad design patents to achieve a monopoly on rectangles and rounded corners.”
With the US President overthrowing the Samsung imposed US sales ban on the iPhone and iPad last week in a bid to stop patent owners wielding “undue leverage,” the move marked the first Presidential ‘disapproval’ of an ITC ruling since 1987.
The presidential statement read: “The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards ¬essential patents (“SEPs”) who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non¬discriminatory (“FRAND”), gaining undue leverage and engaging in “patent hold¬up”, i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen.”
Read More: Samsung Galaxy S5 rumours