Obama Administration Rejects USITC Decision Blocking Apple Imports

Patentees tend to fare well in proceedings before the US International Trade Commission (USITC). Under Section 337 of the 1930 Tariff Act (as amended), patentees can file a complaint with the agency that alleges importation of infringing products. Unlike ordinary courts, the USITC is not authorized to award monetary damages. However, the agency can (and regularly does) issue injunctive relief in the form of exclusion orders enforced by US Customs and Border Control agents. A second hitch with USITC proceedings is that the US President is given the opportunity to reject any exclusion order issued by the USITC.

As part of the mobile patent wars, Samsung filed a Section 337 complaint against Apple alleging patent infringement. Although Apple is a US company, it still imports its products from China and is thus susceptible to USITC action. And, although the USITC’s stated mission is to protect US domestic industry, foreign-based companies (such as Samsung) are still permitted to file complaints with the agency to protect their US intellectual property rights.

After a full process, the USITC determined that Apple’s iPhone 4 infringes Samsung’s US Patent No. 7,706,348 (claims 75, 76, 82, 83, 84). The USITC consequently issued an exclusion order. Now, however, the US Trade Representative (as official representative of the Obama Administration) has issued a letter of disapproval based upon the conclusion that Samsung’s commitment to FRAND licensing of its patents. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF. The denial effectively ends Samsung’s case at the USITC. However, Samsung has also asserted the patent in a parallel lawsuit in Federal Court (Delaware). That Delaware case has been stayed (with consent of both parties) pending outcome of the USITC case.

79 thoughts on “Obama Administration Rejects USITC Decision Blocking Apple Imports

  1. anon, no. It really depends by what people mean when they say “reasonsalbe.” One cannot be expected to license one’s patents to a monopolists who refuses to license you his so that you are driven from the business.

  2. There is some truth to that anon. But, I think that Obama and Clinton are just out of their depth for issues like finance and intellectual property.

    And we have “intellectuals” like Lemley that lie in law journals and are amoral that are the intellectual foundation of the burning.

    I know people laugh at me on this board for being too pessimistic, but look at what happened on Wall Street.

    The last fed. cir. en banc case came close to invalidating 100′s of thousands of patents and did so with no regard to stare decisis, and frankly a complete disregard for the science and the law.

    I am dumbfounded that you and others don’t see that the three henchmen will make this happen in the next en banc case. A question for you is how in the world do you think that Newman/Rader/Moore/O’Malley are going to stop them when they are out numbered?

    The henchmen–I will bet–were appointed with the understanding that they would put patents under control.

    Our biggest problem is that Obama has rolled over and his ability to burn the system down is almost boundless.

  3. I’m surprised anyone even bothers buying these worthless things

    What things are you talking about, Malcolm? Patents?

    (sigh) I will tell you again: get into a line of work in which you can believe in what you are doing.

  4. as long as no one knows what you are replying to or what you have said before

    LOL – the archives are wonderful for showing Malcolm to be ridiculous in the short run as well. It is extremely easy to show his duplicity, dissembling and hypocrisy. His thinking that he can spin anything simply is a massive Fail.

    Maybe someday it will occur to him that the better course is for him to be intellectually honest (doubtful, as this would lead him to the realization that his agendas are bankrupt).

  5. And s*ckers like you that don’t even know you are being taken advantage of.

    I disagree.

    And that makes the whoring of the Left by the Right even worse.

    The Left knows full well who and what its bed-mate is. They are ‘banking’ [pun intended] on the resulting power situation being so onerous and transparently unpleasant so as to (attempt) to make the Left world-view seem downright pleasing in comparison. Sacrificing property (intellectual as it is) in the process is an easy sacrifice to make for them. It is not all that bad a theoretical gambit to make, as direct attempts at installing their ideology have failed miserably.

    Of course the Left is not right (correct). The Left simply has human nature wrong. Communism will not work. Ever. And the Golden Rule – he who has the gold, makes the rules – will prevail. It’s just a question of when will the Left realize that they have been used. Will they realize it in time to change tactics, or will they add to their failures in history’s footnotes.

  6. Obama has ceded control to bought off intellectuals just like he did with the financial sector. Burn baby burn. You haven’t figured out yet that left is just as bad as the right—they are all in the pockets of big corp, med., university, and financial sector. In other words the 0.1 percent that control the country.

    You guys were just making fun of me for saying the three henchmen and then the next day we get this.

    You made fun of me and called me “wiper” and then Rader and Moore were more hysterical by far than I was.

    Your boy IAEADAF said I didn’t understand his smelly test tubes, but I predicted the outcome of his case and he didn’t have the guts to even call it.

    Fact is MM, you are good at one off replies out of context as long as no one knows what you are replying to or what you have said before. But, in the long run, you are ridiculous.

  7. MM, I see you are creating little fantasy worlds again.

    The point is that Obama doesn’t understand the patent system. Has said nutty things. Has obviously ceded power to others because he is incapable of evaluating solutions. The “others” are using this opportunity to burn us down. Gee, does that sound like what happened with Clinton and the financial sector? With the financial sector we had the fat cats in NYC steal trillions from us. And, now we have big corp. burning down our patent system.

    And s*ckers like you that don’t even know you are being taken advantage of.

    No, I don’t think Bush would be better. My but you are political.

  8. CISCO ASSIGNED NEW PATENT FOR VIRTUAL FABRIC MEMBERSHIP ASSIGNMENTS

    I better not say to much more; furthermore, where would the world be without the American people?

    link to youtube.com

    So, right now, even our voice communications are significant thanks to Applle and Samsung, our atomic model for DNA is not yet in the machine. See Catoms

  9. Great Ned – but the ‘phone wars’ in and of themselves is a different issue, isn’t it? (just like I posted above at 5:19)

  10. Ned,

    Directly my point: it really depends on one’s policy as FRAND is not spelled out. It has no meaning, and depends on context.

    Do not assume that cross licensing is what FRAND means.

  11. It appears that the phone wars started because Apple would not cross license.

    Cross License
    The agreement doesn’t provide Nokia with a full agreement to cross-license patents with Apple. In court filings, Apple had claimed that Nokia filed the suits to strong-arm it into granting Nokia access to patented technology for features that differentiate the iPhone from other smartphones.
    Apple said in a statement today that Nokia will have a license to some technology, “but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique.” Apple gets a license to some of Nokia’s patents, including ones that were deemed essential to industry standards on mobile phones.”

    link to bloomberg.com

  12. Anon, I think it really depends on one’s policy as FRAND is not spelled out.  It has no meaning, and depends on context.
     
    Do not assume that cross licensing is not what FRAND means. 
     
    There have been settlements in the wars.  It would be interesting to determine whether there was or was not a cross license.  I assume in every case there WAS a cross license.
     
    Now, with THAT ASSUMPTION, what do you think FRAND means in point of fact?

     
     
     

  13. But, if one states publicly to all comers that one’s agreement to FRAND is a commitment to cross license on reasonable

    Ned – you just inserted the conclusion you wanted to reach, right after stating that FRAND oblligations are noramlly not spelled out.

    You cannot have it both ways – not spelled out and spelled out with a handcuff to equate FRAND and cross-license.

  14. anon, not really. FRAND obligations are normally not spelled out. Thus, what one’s obligations are when one agrees to FRAND are not well understood.

    But, if one states publicly to all comers that one’s agreement to FRAND is a commitment to cross license on reasonable, ND, terms, and that running royalty licenses will not be offered, I would think that a company that does not agree to a cross license would have no basis for a FRAND running royalty license.

  15. it is the only way that the market can work and be a free market.

    It never fails to jolt one’s sensibilities when this extreme example of cognitive dissonance appears.

    Tr0 llb0y: Free Market has NEVER meant unregulated market

    Right, except perhaps on planet earth:

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies.

    But, hey, everybody knows that Wikipedia is just a bunch of liberal facts.

  16. anon, IIRC, the likes of IBM and MS once believed that their own FRAND obligations did not extend to licensing patents outside the context of a cross license when the both parties were competing.

    So, if one party refuses to deal on the basis of a cross license, the FRAND obligations simply vanish.

    IIRC, the phone wars started because Apple would not cross license.

  17. Hal Wegner: Americans wth important IP rights should be concerned about the impact of this case on their future treaty-based rights for overseas enforcement.”

    Samsung has the US Federal Court system, does it not? The possibility of executive override is one of the risks of relying on the USITC. I’m pretty sure Samsung knew that. I’m pretty sure that Wegner knows this, too. Maybe he just forgot or he’s throwing his biggest fans some “chum.”

  18. You’re right. Your home is exactly like a patent.

    My neighbor’s home was just invalidated by the prior art. That’s okay because it was about to expire anyway.

    I cannot put up a factory on my land, because of zoning laws; I cannot use it as a brothel, because of that violates criminal laws; I cannot make it an outdoor rock ‘n’ roll club because the neighbors would file lawsuit that I was creating a nuisance.

    I’m surprised anyone even bothers buying these worthless things. When they told me I couldn’t sell heroin to the schoolkids from my front porch, I was like, “What’s the point of owning a home?” You might as well just buy some rope and have a friend tie you up with it and throw you in the curb. That’s how over-regulated our lives have become.

    /t–b-gger off

  19. Doesn’t the concept of FRAND open up the licensing of the technology to all (regardless of competitor status, and won’t most of those you license to more likely than not be competitors)?

    Or are you comtemplating that any patent suit removes that particular from the ability to interact with standards essential technology?

    Not seeing how you can “reasonably” make it to your position, Ned.

  20. Obama is being told what to think regarding patents …. The liberals have this problem.

    What? An executive seeking the input of advisers, academics and industry stakeholders a “liberal” problem?

    That’s pretty funny stuff.

    in the same way that he is about financial situations

    Huh? Because Obama has total control over the Federal budget and monetary policy? Or …?

    Like all executives, Obama has a choice of who to listen to. Maybe you think he should listen to a self-proclaimed “patent apologist” when considering patent policy?

  21. You really see the liberal lefts inability to deal with real issues like financial and patent reform.

    You’re blaming what exactly on the “liberal left”? You think George W. Bush did a better job with financial and patent reform? Maybe Obama should install Gene Quinn to get the job done. Would that please you?

    Obama is trying to cripple the patent system in his own incompetent way.

    Sure he is. Weren’t you howling not too long ago about being incorrectly labeled as a Republican water carrier? And you claimed to be a Democrat or something? I found that hard to believe … for some mysterious reason.

  22. Apple sued Samsung first. link to en.wikipedia.org

    Note, the phone wars stated when Nokia sued Apple. After two years, those parties settled with a payment by Apple.

    I question whether one is reasonably obligated to license a competitor who is suing one for patent infringement, FRAND or NO FRAND?

  23. I cannot put up a factory on my land, because of zoning laws;
    I cannot use it as a brothel, because of that violates criminal laws;
    I cannot make it an outdoor rock ‘n’ roll club because the neighbors would file lawsuit that I was creating a nuisance.

    You’re right. Your home is exactly like a patent.

  24. Yep, as far as the law goes.

    I cannot put up a factory on my land, because of zoning laws;
    I cannot use it as a brothel, because of that violates criminal laws;
    I cannot make it an outdoor rock ‘n’ roll club because the neighbors would file lawsuit that I was creating a nuisance.

    But, the law does say that I can keep you out of it.

    That is what property is. In the case of my house. it is real property. In the case of a patent, it is intellectual property.

  25. The essence of the property right is the right to exclude…

    Interesting. That’s the essence of the property right to your home?

  26. cut the time for discovery by 50%

    Not sure if encouraging stall and delay tactics will meet your supposition of justice being meted out…

  27. Leopold,

    Very nice play. Of course, the sound of arrows into the ground at your feet should be a common occurence for you.

    Bu tplease, if you want to say anything on topic, feel free to wake up and do so.

  28. The USTR’s argument must be taken in context. 1) and 2) at 9:00 work in tandem. That is why the very post here by American Cowboy fails, and the indications of kitchen sinks and toenail clippings point this out.

  29. LB, the house analogy is perfect if you really consider a patent to be intellectual property. The essence of the property right is the right to exclude, and that right to exclude is exercised by an eviction action in court, just like a patent infringement case that ends in an injunction.

    Patents are granted by the government, not created by the government. The inventor of an invention has the right to go to the grave with his secret if he wants to. The government’s promise to give him the right to exclude others for a limited period of time in exchange for disclosing his secret is the essence of the patent.

    When the government reneges on that promise by failing to grant injunctions or exclusion orders, it breaks its promise to the inventor.

  30. What’s to stop Samsung from asking the Commission to now make specific factual findings along the lines of those mentioned by the USTR, and then seeing if the Commission will issue another exclusion order?

  31. Guest,

    The way it’s always been interpreted at the ITC, FRAND’s an affirmative defense that the respondent must prove. This ruling not only appears to change that paradigm (at least for public interest issues), it goes against a recent district court ruling that held that the FRAND burden was clearly on the defendant.

    link to essentialpatentblog.com

  32. What we need is for federal circuit court judges to grab control of their patent dockets — cut the time for discovery by 50% — so justice can be meted out quicker.

  33. Reminds me of the Free Beer conversation…

    (and that Free Market has NEVER meant unregulated market in reality, even though some immediately hewed to a false very Carroll view of that dicussion)

  34. Paul,

    While I had the same initial thought of “and also said what seems to me be a criticism of inadequate ITC fact-finding on that issue?,” the following line then means…what?:

      This policy decision is not an endorsement or a criticism of the Commission’s decision or analysis

    The letter – as a whole – is a Fail.

  35. Note that the USTR decision clearly indicated that the reaction of other Federal Agencies to the disputed RAND issues in this case was a major factor, and also said what seems to me be a criticism of inadequate ITC fact-finding on that issue?:
    “I would like to underscore that in any future cases involving SEPs [standard essential patents] that are subject to voluntary FRAND [fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory] commitments, the Commission should be certain to (1) examine thoroughly and carefully on its own initiative the public interest issues presented both at the outset of its proceeding and when determining whether a particular remedy is in the public interest and (2) seek proactively to have the parties develop a comprehensive factual record related to these issues in the proceedings before the administrative Law Judge and during the formal remedy phase of the investigation before the Commission, including information on the standards-essential nature of the patent at issue if contested by the patent holder and the presence or absence of patent hold-up or reverse hold-up.* In addition, the Commission should make explicit findings on these issues to the maximum extent possible. I will look for these elements in any future decisions involving FRAND-encumbered SEPs that are presented for policy review. The Commission is well-positioned to consider these issues in its public interest determinations.”

    The FRAND applicabiliy issue, plus validity and infringement, will presumably still be up for dispute, in the parallel D.C. infringement suit? [Although it is hard to see how Apple’s odds of proving invalidation or non-infringement of a patent would be better in a jury trial than in the ITC administrative proceeding it lost on those issues?

    *i.e., in this case, was Samsung refusing to give Apple a reasonable license requred by an applicable FRAND agreement, or was Apple refusing to negotiate in good faith by not offering to pay anything?

  36. Don’t appreciate having the executive weigh in – without a shred of reasoning

    And yet some “don’t see a problem.”

  37. Guest, on this record, the president denies an exclusion order?

    FRAND cannot be assumed. Obviously it is a defense. Apple did not prove its case. Yet it won?

    How?

  38. LB, we ought to START all ITC and DC actions, then, with a preliminary ruling that the license offer was reasonable and was refused.  Why waste court time and resources otherwise?

     
     

  39. More American protectionism; Americans are for a ‘free’ market so long as it benefits them.

    I for one plan to avoid American stocks moving forward. Don’t appreciate having the executive weigh in – without a shred of reasoning – and hand their American darling company a get out of jail free card, particularly given Apple’s long and litigious history.

    This has caused America to fall quite far in my view.

  40. As a result, we really don’t know what a patent owner must do in order to enforce its patents against a company that refuses to license on unreasonable terms, Assuming that Samsung did make such offer and that Apple did refuse it.

    Really, Ned? You don’t know what to do to enforce your patent against a company that refuses to license on reasonable terms?

  41. And that what this whole case is really all about: how much is the royalty?

    Uh, yes, that’s what the whole case is really about. What do you think it’s about?

    Consider if I move into your house and claim it is available to me to live in. … That is the outcome of these weird compulsory licensing situations.

    Your argument is based on the premise that infringing a patent is just like moving into someone else’s house. That’s an absurd premise, so the rest of the argument is moot.

    … in reality it is the only way that the market can work and be a free market.

    Right, the only way we can have a free market is for the government to step in and enforce exclusion orders based on government-created and granted rights-to-exclude. That makes sense.

  42. This isn’t really about Apple and Samsung, this is about making the ITC and the parties put better evidence in the record to determine if the complainant has satisfied its FRAND licensing obligations. Apple’s not selling many of these products (old iPads/iPhones). If you go read the Commission Opinion, a big issue was a lack of evidence on public interest/FRAND issues. It’s not clear whether Samsung made FRAND offers or whether they were trying to tie non-essential patents to the essential ones in possible violation of antitrust law (or at least patent misuse). Commissioner Pinkert believed the evidence proved that Samsung was trying to tie non-essential patents and wasn’t making a FRAND offer. The other 5 believed that Apple hadn’t proven that Samsung didn’t attempt to comply with it.

    The real question I have to ask: Who has the burden of proving whether the complainant complied with their FRAND obligation? It’s unclear going forward who has to prove it, and whether it is an affirmative defense or part of the complainant’s prima facie case at the ITC.

  43. It’s not like Apple did not have months or years to see an exclusion order coming, during which time it could have negotiated in good faith to arrive at the FRAND royalty.

    And that what this whole case is really all about: how much is the royalty?

    This situation exemplifies the problem with denials of exclusion orders and injunctions (aka compulsory licenses). I skews the negotiations in the infringer’s favor.

    Consider if I move into your house and claim it is available to me to live in. You go to court to get me evicted and the courts says, no, you can’t evict me but you can ask me to pay a rent at an amount that you and I negotiate. I will say, well, your lovely mansion is really only worth $200/month when you say it is worth $5000/month. The end result of the negotiation will necessarily be closer to the $200/month than it would be if you could evict me. The property owner gets less than a market price for his property. That is the outcome of these weird compulsory licensing situations.

    The infringer bunch call the coercive power of the potential injunction hold up; in reality it is the only way that the market can work and be a free market.

  44. The refusal made no mention at all of whether Samsung had offered and whether Apple had refused a royalty-bearing license on FRAND terms. The so-called opinion simply discuss policy and did not apply the that policy to the facts of the case in any meaningful fashion. As a result, we really don’t know what a patent owner must do in order to enforce its patents against a company that refuses to license on unreasonable terms, Assuming that Samsung did make such offer and that Apple did refuse it.

    If the ITC action was filed after negotiations over years had failed, I would hope that the patent owner may still have a remedy.

    If the ITC action was filed by a company in defensive and aggressive action by another company asserting that other companies patents, we should not strip companies of their defense. The commitment to licensing FRAND must assume that essential patents held by the other party will be licensed as well.

  45. I really “mis-overestimated” the readership of Patently-O. This thread has more incoherent, self-serving comments than an article on the House of Representatives voting to repeal the ACA for the 43rd time.

    Don’t worry folks. This decision doesn’t undermine your rent-seeking business models. It just puts an end to enforcement of exclusion orders that are against the public interest.

  46. More to the ‘entire picture,’ courtesy of Hal Wegner:

      What about China, the Shoe on the Other Foot?

      Imagine an American movie studio, book publisher, high tech electronics manufacturer or other intellectual property rights holder going to a Shanghai Court and successfully winning an infringement suit. Then, imagine that President Xi Jinping blocks enforcement “[a]fter extensive consultations with … interested … persons … based on … review of … considerations … as they relate to … the effect on [domestic] consumers.”

      TRIPS Boomerang! The quotation is not from the President of China but instead from Ambassador Froman in the Samsung v. Apple controversy . The negative implications for American enforcement of Chinese (and Indian and other overseas) IP rights are explained in the pdf version of this note. Americans wth important IP rights should be concerned about the impact of this case on their future treaty-based rights for overseas enforcement.

    Want the direct line? write to Hal at hwegner@foley.com and ask to be put on his email distribution list.

  47. Sorry Leopold, you are not grasping the entire picutre at the same tim ethat you recognize that Samsung is, in fact, generally committed to FRAND licensing anyway.

    Open your eyes.

  48. The WSJ was reporting that the commissioner reasoned that the exclusion order gave – ‘undue influence’ to the patent holder in license negations.

    An exclusion order would shut down a business worth $4B or so in sales per month, until Apple agreed to Samsung’s royalty demands. That sounds like ‘undue influence’ to me.

  49. The WSJ was reporting that the commissioner reasoned that the exclusion order gave – ‘undue influence’ to the patent holder in license negations. Wow. Just wow.

    The kleptocrats need better script writers.

  50. And let me ask you: do you not see a problem here?

    No, I don’t think I do. Samsung can pursue monetary remedies in court, and the harm to Apple and its customers from an exclusion order pretty clear outweighs any actual harm to Samsung and the public stemming from this order. The USTR says that Samsung is generally committed to (and benefits from) FRAND licensing anyway, so they really can’t whine too much about their moral rights being damaged.

    If every reviewed and overturned decision exhibits this level of unsubstantiated reasoning, then I would have a problem with that.

    They’re not reviewing and overturning the ITC’s legal reasoning or conclusions. They’re simply negating the exclusion order, on policy grounds that extend beyond the ITC’s mandate. I would be more concerned if the White House argued with the ITC panel over infringement/validity issues.

  51. Leopoldo,

    My immediate concern is with this particular decision.

    If every reviewed and overturned decision exhibits this level of unsubstantiated reasoning, then I would have a problem with that.

    And let me ask you: do you not see a problem here?

  52. It amounts to a “because I say so” decision.

    Yes, it does. But that’s how this particular system works. Is your concern with the law, or with this particular executive branch decision?

  53. This is a clear signal from Obama (or really the people that control him) that he is going to start taking off heads.

    The problem we have is that Obama is being told what to think regarding patents in the same way that he is about financial situations. The liberals have this problem. They cede whole areas of thought when they can’t understand something.

    Obama has ceded his patent policy to others and they want them gone. In other words, the money people big corp. and financial institutions are coming for us with Obama as the puppet.

  54. Maybe that when Public Interest is high enough then patent rights, litigation and facts surrounding it (like negotiation) do not matter?

    This way USA would join Indie, Indonesia and some other countires who practic it that way. Though they usuall intervene on behalve of their citizens who need medications not smarphones …

  55. At this point, Obama is clearly being controlled just as he was in the financial crisis when he turned to the very people that made the problem.

    The problem we have is that his master wants no more patents.

  56. The oddest part of the Executive Branch letter:

      it is beyond the scope of this policy review to revisit the Commission’s legal analysis or its findings based on its record

    followed by the conclusory “this decision is based on my review” without actually detailing that review. It amounts to a “because I say so” decision.

    Very poor.

  57. “Obama Administration) has issued a letter of disapproval based upon the conclusion that Samsung’s commitment to FRAND licensing of its patents. ”

    Heaven’t ITC declared this particular patent as NON-SEP and thus not covered by any Samsung FRAND commitments?

    If so, isn’t this decision about ANY patent then…

    As in: if infrigement bring too much of benefit to community, then only damages can be sought?

    Because this decision also clearly state that it do NOT contradict any factual findings by ITC.. So it also do not dispute statut of that patent as found by ITC….

    (Am I missing something here?)

  58. You really see the liberal lefts inability to deal with real issues like financial and patent reform. Rather than getting competent people to correct the heading of the ship (like get someone like Rich to write the patent act), they are overwhelmed with the problem and don’t know how to solve it.

    They turn to the big international corps to appease their cries. And, then they take actions from a master whose intent is to destroy the system.

  59. Notice that this fits very well with what I have been saying about Obama. Remove Kappos and send in three henchmen. Obama is trying to cripple the patent system in his own incompetent way.

  60. “second hitch with USITC proceedings is that the US President is given the opportunity to reject any exclusion order issued by the USITC. ”

    lolololol whodathunkit?

    “foreign-based companies (such as Samsung) are still permitted to file complaints with the agency to protect its US intellectual property rights. ”

    Talk about twilight zone logic.

    “The denial effectively ends Samsung’s case at the USITC. ”

    DENIED!

    To be honest though I was rather rooting for Samsung in this whole kerfluffle after Apple got all ridiculous. “Hey samsung you’re tots infringing our patents this must stop!” “K, well we’re going to jack up your prices on our chips and also you’re infringing on ours so nyeh”. That was time well spent.

Comments are closed.