ProAds

In a high-profile but strikingly limited legal victory for Apple, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled today that HTC has violated only one of the Cupertino, Calif.-based company's patents.

The ITC--a quasi-judicial body that opponents of a Hollywood-backed copyright bill have proposed as a home for a new piracy court--said it would impose an import ban on some of HTC's products. But that won't take effect until April 19, 2012, giving HTC, Google, and other partners time to remove certain features or figure out technical work-arounds that don't infringe on the patent.

Taiwan-based HTC said today it will remove that feature from "all of our phones" soon, meaning the ITC's ruling (PDF) will have little practical effect.

The ruling is hardly a complete victory for Apple: in March 2010, the company filed a complaint saying HTC violated 10 of its patents. In a preliminary ruling in June, an ITC administrative law judge found only two violations, and today's ruling narrows the violation to only one of the original 10 patents.

Pierre Ferragu, a senior analyst at the London-based Sanford C. Bernstein research firm, said "this ruling will represent absolutely no disruption at all to HTC's business in the U.S."

In a statement to CNET, HTC general counsel Grace Lei said: "We are gratified that the commission affirmed the judge's initial determination on the '721 and '983 patents, and reversed its decision on the '263 patent and partially on the '647 patent. We are very pleased with the determination and we respect it. However, the '647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon."

Another option for HTC would be to create a technical work-around that doesn't run afoul of the patent in question, which deals with "data tapping" techniques that automatically format documents to allow, for instance, a dialer program to pop up when a phone number appears.

In a post on the FOSS Patents blog, Florian Mueller, who is critical of software patents, notes:

The patent in question, 5,946,647 was granted in 1999 and covers identifying data "having recognizable structures," such as a "phone number, post-office address, e-mail address, and name." Then, the patent says, a "parsing process" will allow "appropriate actions" to be taken.

The latest development is nevertheless a blow to HTC, which has made strides in building market share and a brand with its line of Android-powered smartphones, many of which feature the company's own Sense user interface. HTC was the first Android supporter that Apple chose to target, signaling the growing threat of Google's software to iOS and the iPhone franchise.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement made when the complaint was originally filed, then-Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who died this fall, said: "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

Technology companies in recent years have increasingly used the ITC to settle their disputes because the process is seen as more efficient than the federal courts. In addition, the threat of an embargo on products typically forces companies to settle more quickly.

HTC is considered the most vulnerable legally of the Android partners because it lacks a robust portfolio of patents that act as a potential shield. HTC this year purchased S3 Graphics, largely because of a collection of patents that could be used against Apple.

In September, HTC launched its legal counterattack against Apple in Delaware federal district court, using nine patents that originally came from Palm, Motorola, and Openwave Systems. Google transferred the rights to HTC on September 1. (A separate, earlier effort before the ITC was unsuccessful, according to an initial ruling in October.)

HTC created the first Android smartphone, the G1, and has seen its profile rise over the past few years. The company was also the first target of an Apple lawsuit related to Android, and is among the most deeply entrenched in litigation over the topic.

Samsung argues that the judge who ordered its Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be banned from sale in Australia “misunderstood and misapplied” basic requirements of the law and elements of her reasoning were “grossly unjust”.

The appeal in the patent infringement case is being heard by the full bench including Justice Dowsett, Justice Foster and Justice Yates - who haven't made a decision yet but appeared to support a number of Samsung's arguments

Apple was successful in October in winning a temporary injunction banning sales of Samsung's tablet in Australia until a final hearing could take place next year. Despite the injunction, several online sellers have made a mockery of the ruling by importing the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from overseas and offering it to Australians.

“We contend that the primary judge made a series of fundamental errors in her disposition of the interlocutory application. They were all errors of principle,” Samsung's lawyer told the court.

“Her honour misunderstood and misapplied the basic requirements concerning interlocutory injunctions as laid down in [previous cases]."

Samsung's lawyer claimed Justice Bennett did not attempt to properly evaluate the strength of Apple's case for infringement or whether the patents in question were invalid. He said she decided Apple had a prima facie case for patent infringement without conducting the proper tests.

He said that given a temporary ban of the product would effectively render it dead for this market - as it would be overtaken by newer models - “the strength of the prima facie case has to be extremely high to justify relief”.

“It [the Galaxy Tab 10.1] is stopped dead in its tracks, perhaps at a critical time in the development of this market,” he said.

One of the judges appeared to express sympathy with this argument, saying: “If you have a fast moving product which if taken off the market, destroys the opportunities available to the newcomer and preserves the monopoly of the incumbent then you'd have to have a very close look at the strength of the case.”

Samsung's lawyer detailed how his side believed Justice Bennett did not abide by the precedents set out in previous similar cases. He also went through the judgment and the relevant patents in heavy detail, outlining where he believes Justice Bennett erred and why Samsung's product differed from Apple's iPad.

“In summary it is our submission that a review of the judgment, the whole judgment, shows that her honour misunderstood the concept of prima facie case,” Samsung's lawyer said.

“In our submission this court will need to re-exercise the power to determine whether to grant or not grant an interlocutory injunction given the errors that were committed by the primary judge.”

Samsung said Justice Bennett's decision to penalise Samsung in her judgment for failing to agree to an early final hearing of the case was “grossly unjust”.

He said Samsung would have agreed to an early final hearing in March next year but Apple's terms – such as that Samsung be prevented from launching both the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and other tablet products in Australia until the final hearing – were unreasonable.

“Samsung is then punished by her honour because it was unwilling to agree to an unfair hearing,” he said.

One of the judges appeared to agree with this proposition and another was critical of Apple's claim that, had the Samsung tablet been allowed to launch, Apple would suffer huge harm. He sceptically asked Apple's lawyer whether “the whole of Apple's going to come tumbling down” if Samsung had been permitted to sell the tablet until the final hearing.

Apple's lawyers rejected Samsung's arguments and said Justice Bennett had made “no error in principle” and had carefully considered a complex case. He said she would have been keenly aware of the serious consequences of granting Apple the temporary ban on the tablet.

“It was not a case of her honour ticking boxes but rather engaging in a careful and detailed review,” Apple's lawyer said.

Both sides acknowledged there was an element of “game playing” in their court battle.

Separately, Samsung has launched several counter-claims against Apple and in a case running in the Federal Court claims Apple's iPhone models infringe its patents.

The Australian court cases are part of a global war between Apple and Samsung, which was kicked off by Apple after it claimed Samsung “slavishly copied” its iPad.