Little-Known Chinese IP Firm Secures China iPhone Injunctions for Qualcomm
Beijing-based LexField Law Offices, which has a strong reputation in IP, especially in helping multinationals fending off infringement in China, is behind Qualcomm's successful iPhone sales ban in the country.
December 13, 2018 at 10:41 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Beijing-based intellectual property specialist firm LexField Law Offices has helped chipmaker Qualcomm Inc. win two preliminary injunctions against iPhone sales in China.
Earlier this week, San Diego-based Qualcomm announced that China's Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court had granted the company injunctions against Apple Inc., banning imports and sales of seven older models of iPhones in China, on grounds of two patent violations.
Qualcomm was represented in the case by LexField co-managing partner Jiang Hongyi, a prominent intellectual property litigator. Apple was advised by longtime counsel Fangda Partners with a team led by Beijing partner Yang Pu. Fuzhou-based Topwe Law Firm was co-counsel to Apple.
Little known to the outside world, LexField has a strong reputation in the intellectual property field, especially in helping multinationals fending off infringement in China. In 2013, Jiang, who co-founded the firm in 2009, successfully represented Google on a trademark infringement case that ended up going all the way to the Supreme People's Court, China's top court.
Jiang was also a founding partner of specialist IP firm Lifang & Partners before forming LexField with former King & Wood trademark partner Jan Liu.
In two related decisions issued on Nov. 30, the Fuzhou Intermediate Court agreed with Qualcomm that Apple's iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X violated two Chinese patents owned by the chipmaker. The sales ban came after an unsuccessful attempt earlier this year by Apple to challenge the validity of the two patents before China's Patent Re-examination Board.
In granting relief to Qualcomm, the court held that if Apple's infringement is not stopped, it will cost Qualcomm more damages as more iPhone models are introduced. The court was also concerned that damages will expand to Qualcomm's other licensees in China.
The injunctions were part of Qualcomm's ongoing patent infringement suit against Apple, which are part of a global patent dispute between the two U.S. companies. A preliminary injunction is a form of interim relief during litigation proceedings. The patents in question are related to photo resizing and touch-screen app managing.
According to the court, the injunctions are effective until a judgment is rendered for the infringement suit. The injunctions themselves are not appealable to a higher court, but Apple is allowed 10 days to file for a reconsideration at the same court. The injunctions will remain effective during the reconsideration period.
As of press time, the iPhone models in question are still on sale in China. On Thursday, Qualcomm said it has filed a petition asking the court for compulsory enforcement of the injunctions. The Greater China region, which includes the mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan, accounts for almost 20 percent of iPhone's global shipment.
The iPhone injunctions follow a similar sales ban issued by the same court earlier this year against U.S. semiconductor maker Micron Technology Inc. In July, the Fuzhou Intermediate Court granted injunctions to Chinese chipmaker Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co. Ltd. and Taiwanese chipmaker United Microelectronics Corp. against imports and sales of Micron's chips. In November, the U.S. Department of Justice charged both Jinhua and UMC with economic espionage.
The Fuzhou Intermediate Court is one of 15 municipal courts across China that have set up a specialized intellectual property tribunal; these tribunals are in addition to three specialist intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. In October, the Supreme People's Court set up its own IP tribunal, which will operate as a circuit court, aiming to take over all appellate patent cases.
Related stories:
Apple Turns to Fangda Partners to Protect Its iPhone in China
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBuchalter Hires Longtime Sheppard Mullin Real Estate Partner as Practice Chair
Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Holland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
3 minute readPaul Hastings Hires Music Industry Practice Chair From Willkie in Los Angeles
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250