Displaying items by tag: Court
Chinese telecommunications conglomerate Huawei has stepped up its legal battle in the United States by filing a lawsuit which is requesting that a US court overturn a federal ban that has been imposed on the company.
The fifth court hearing for Meng Wanzhou's case took place in Canada on May 8. Huawei issued a statement regarding this hearing in which it reveals three new and important disclosures that the lawyers for Ms. Meng made in court. From the outset, Huawei has expressed confidence in Ms. Meng’s innocence. “We have maintained that her U.S.-ordered arrest was an unlawful abuse of process – one guided by political considerations and tactics, not by the rule of law.”
A German court ruled in favor of US chipmaker Qualcomm in a patent dispute case against Apple, which could lead to a ban on sales of iPhones in Germany. This marks a second major win for Qualcomm in a month after a court in China on December 10 ordered a prohibition on iPhone sales over a separate patent dispute there.
The chipmaker has won a preliminary injunction that would ban the sale and import of Apple’s recent iPhone models in China, including the iPhone 6S, 6S Plus, iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus, and iPhone X.
The court ruled that Apple is violating software patents held by Qualcomm that are specifically related to resizing pictures and managing applications.
Qualcomm has accused Apple of ‘stealing’ Qualcomm’s source code to share with rival modem supplier Intel, and that the American phone giant continues to benefit from their intellectual property while refusing to compensate them. It has spent the past year trying to ban iPhone sales in China.
Apple accuses Qualcomm of using its market dominance to unreasonably raise prices, commenting:
“Qualcomm’s effort to ban our products is another desperate move by a company whose illegal practices are under investigation by regulators around the world.”
Apple continues to sell the devices in China.
South Korean conglomerate Samsung has been rocked following the decision by Seoul Central District Court to sentence its leader to five years in jail for bribery. Billionaire, Jay Y. Lee, was the head of Samsung Group but his career is now in turmoil as it faces up to the prospect of spending the next five years in prison.
The ruling by the court in South Korea brings to an end a six-month scandal that shocked the nation - the revelations of bribery and corruption that was uncovered also forced the then President Park Geun-hye to stepdown. The decision by the judiciary is seen as a ‘watershed’ moment in South Korean affairs, and ends the decade long economic order which was dominated by family-run conglomerates.
It emerged that a court found Lee guilty of paying bribes in anticipation of favors from the South Korean president. In addition to this, the court also found Lee guilty on charges of concealing assets overseas, embezzlement and perjury.
The head of Samsung is the heir to one of the world’s biggest corporate empires – and the 49-year-old has been in custody since February following allegations that he bribed Park in order to help him secure control of a conglomerate that owns Samsung Electronics, which is the world’s largest smartphone manufacturer and chipmaker.
The judge who passed down sentence on Lee said that as the group’s heir apparent it was obvious who stood to benefit from any ‘political favors’ for Samsung. However, Lee has vehemently denied any wrongdoing since the outset, and maintains his innocence. A representative of Lee’s legal team, Song Wu-cheol confirmed they would appeal the decision and said the guilty verdict is ‘unacceptable. He said, “The entire guilty verdict is unacceptable, we’re confident that our client’s innocence will be affirmed by a higher court.”
It has emerged that the case is expected to be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court - and the appeal is likely to take place next year. Legal commentators have claimed that the sentence is quite severe and is one of the longest ever given to a prominent South Korean businessman, adding that the decision was a landmark ruling for family-run conglomerates that are revered in the country for transforming the war-torn country into a global economic superpower.
However, recently the family-run conglomerates have drawn criticism for stifling start-ups and being responsible for the economy to stall and stagnate. Samsung was seen as a shining example of the country’s rise from poverty during the Korean War which lasted from 1950-1953. In recent times though, the South Korean colossus has epitomized the sometimes ‘corrupt’ ties that exist between politicians and the chaebols.
US tech giants Apple have seen a ban prohibiting the company from selling its iPhone 6 phones in China overturned following a legal hearing. A Chinese court ruled in its favor in a patent dispute between the Californian based company and a domestic phone-maker. The legal row began in May last year, when a Beijing based patent regulator took the decision to order Apple’s Chinese subsidiary and local retailer Zoom-Flight to immediately stop selling iPhones after Shenzhen Baili Marketing Services lodged an official complaint with the regulatory authority.
The company claimed that the patent for the design of its mobile phone 100c was being infringed by the iPhone sales. Apple strongly objected to both the claims and subsequent decision to ban the sale of iPhone 6 devices by the regulatory authorities. Management at Apple and Zoom-Flight launched legal proceedings and took the Beijing Intellectual Property Office’s ban to courts.
At the hearing, the court decided to revoke the ban imposed on Apple and Zoom-Flight and declared that both organizations did not violate Shenzhen Baili’s design patent for 100c phones. The court said that the regulator did not follow due procedures in ordering the ban. In addition to this, the court said there was a distinct lack of sufficient proof to claim the designs constituted a violation of intellectual property rights.
It has not yet been disclosed whether or not representatives of Beijing Intellectual Property Office and Shenzhen Baili will appeal the decision by the court, and a spokesman representing both organizations said they would take time before making a decision in relation to the legal ruling. In addition to this, the same court denied Apple’s demand to strip Shenzhen Baili of its design patent for 100c phone.
Apple first filed the request to the Patent Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property Office. The board rejected the request, but Apple lodged a lawsuit against the rejection. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court on Friday ruled to maintain the board's decision. It is unclear if Apple will appeal.
Facebook has been ordered by a US court to pay a whopping $500m to a gaming software company in a lawsuit which claimed virtual reality technology was stolen. In documents shown to the court, Facebook’s virtual reality arm Oculus Rift stood accused of basing its Rift headset products on technology stolen from ZeniMax’s VR software
The court heard how it was alleged that Oculus founder Palmer Luckey had developed its Rift headsets courtesy of source code which was illegally obtained from ZeniMax. The jury at the courthouse in Texas dismissed charges against Oculus in relation that they stole or misappropriated trade secrets – but did find Facebook’s VR unit liable for copyright infringement and other violations.
The Oculus founder was ordered to pay $50m – and his executive Brendan Iribe was told by the court that he had to pay $150m. The two executives had allegedly violated a non-disclosure agreement with ZeniMax and copied source code and other documents on a USB storage device.
ZeniMax had sought damages for $4 billion in the case, and during the trial Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg testified to defend his company.
ZeniMax had sought $4 billion in damages in a case which seen Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg take the stand to defend his company. Following the court ruling the gaming software firm expressed their happiness at the decision handed down by jury, and for ruling that a violation had occurred in relation to their non-disclosure agreement with Oculus.
Chairman and chief executive of ZeniMax, Robert Altman said, “Technology is the foundation of our business and we consider the theft of our intellectual property to be a serious matter.”
Oculus released a statement in which they confirmed they planned to appeal the verdict, and that this would not deter them from bringing VR technology to customers.
The statement read, “The heart of this case was about whether Oculus stole ZeniMax's trade secrets, and the jury found decisively in our favor. Our commitment to the long-term success of VR remains the same, and the entire team will continue the work they've done since day one -developing VR technology that will transform the way people interact and communicate. We look forward to filing our appeal and eventually putting this litigation behind us."
Oculus was acquired by Facebook almost three years ago for more than $2 billion – and last year began trading Rift headsets as part of the social network giants push into the world of virtual reality. Facebook released its earnings for the fourth quarter, and in a statement to analysts confirmed that it would still keep ‘making big investments in VR content’ and was excited about what is coming in 2017 from games to immersive experiences.