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:
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
© 2024 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 AllFederal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
2 minute read'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
Trending Stories
- 1Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 2Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 3Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 4Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
- 5Georgia Supreme Court Honoring Troutman Pepper Partner, Former Chief Justice
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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