U.S. ITC judge recommends import and sales ban on Samsung products

Supreme Court

A U.S. International Trade Commission judge Thomas Pender is recommending sanctions against Samsung in light of his preliminary finding that the company infringed four of Apple’s patents.

The recommended sanctions include an import and sales ban on products found to infringe Apple patents and the posting of a bond for 88 percent of the value of some of the devices involved. The infringing devices in Pender’s preliminary ruling include the Samsung Transform, Acclaim, Indulge and Intercept smartphone models.

Judge Thomas Pender’s remedy  in the Apple complaint against Samsung was made public when it entered the ITC’s filing system last Friday. The U.S. import ban that is mentioned would begin after a 60-day presidential review period and a final ITC decision that would follow. Pender also recommended a cease-and-desist order banning the sale of “any commercially significant” quantities  of the infringing products.

In addition to that, Pender’s remedy would also require Samsung to post a bond for 88 percent of the value of all infringing mobile phones, 32.5 percent of infringing media players and  37.6 percent of infringing tablet devices.

Despite all that, there is still the possibility that Samsung would be allowed to sell some of the products involved in the complaint — if they comply several workarounds involving redesigned versions of those products. According to patent expert Florian Mueller, those designs must be “legally safe but also technically adequate and commercially viable.”

Finally, take note that Pender’s recommendations have yet to and must be approved by the six members of the ITC Commission.

[via Computerworld, image via Matt Wade]

Related Posts

  • Mike

    @mukhi: Maybe you are right, in the end–the oddest things can happen in life; but in the absence of facts, I just have a hard time with conspiracy theories and don’t see any of it.

    And in the case of the Apple/Samsung trial, both sides had the impetus and money; and a jury, not the judge (of Korean heritage, again, as if that should matter in anything but conspiracy theory) decided the verdict (albeit, with a judge having power to shape many aspects of the trial).

    No, I see the facts and law as the determining factors, until there is evidence otherwise.

  • mukhi

    “Facts and evidence are good things; unsupported innuendo, not so much.” – true, but when millions of dollars are involved, evidence may not always be available, at least, at the moment. i told you, we will “see” in the long run. if samsung is wrong, they will be proved wrong in most, if not all of the cases.

    “Oh, and as to 9/11? Let’s keep our eyes on reality: terrorists caused it.” – it becomes an easy job for burglars if you keep your doors open. terrorists were allowed to cause it, period.

  • Mike

    @mukhi: Sorry, but your conspiracy theories here just are unfounded; and, with the greatest of respect, you have no evidence to back your theories up, just unfounded innuendo–that is dangerous, indeed.

    There are so many checks and balances, and appeals, in the U.S. federal judicial system that unfounded innuendo against it just is that. And yes, I am familiar with the system and judges involved. It would make as much (unfounded) sense to say that the judges outside the U.S. are prejudiced against Apple.

    In the end, I like to believe that all of the judges and juries are simply doing their jobs and applying the law of each country, to the involved facts. The multicultural nature of the U.S. might even support this as well, and argue against a bias for or against any particular party. By the way, you are aware, right, that the California judge who oversaw the recent Apple/Samsung trial is of Korean heritage? If you want to argue bias, I guess one inclined to do so would say that she was pro-Samsung. Of course, there is no evidence one way or the other.

    Facts and evidence are good things; unsupported innuendo, not so much.

    Oh, and as to 9/11? Let’s keep our eyes on reality: terrorists caused it.

  • mukhi

    @Mike: my point is that money can buy almost anything, and given the apparent bias of american judges toward apple in the last few months, this theory is very convincing to me. 1st of all, apple has been allowed BS patents specially in regard to iphone, and now, this company has started a patent war against a true competitor like samsung as a result of which the former is enjoying a marketing advantage without getting us a true innovatory product. apple used to be bringing mind-blowing gadgets, but when did we last see something like that?
    and you tell me hard-working judges cannot be purchased? then who made 9/11 happen (just an example)? US security is known to be one of the best, but gunmen still entered the aircraft, right?
    if apple wins lawsuits in all other countries in the long run, i will eat crow, i promise.

  • Mike

    @mukhi: Sorry but, the ITC judges are incredibly hard-working judges and the judge’s decision here no doubt is as unbiased as one could find–do you have any evidence otherwise, apart from Internet innuendo? Just because Apple prevails in a lawsuit doesn’t mean that a judge is in its pocket–someone suing actually can be right, under the law, you know, Apple included. If you don’t like the results, change the law.

  • mukhi

    must be another unofficially paid employee of apple, LMFAO. if apple wants their products to be sold, they need to come up with better stuffs at lower prices, period, no bitching please.