Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Apple ITC Motion Against Import Ban

Apple ITC Motion Against Import Ban

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9,821|Likes:
Published by Mikey Campbell
Apple ITC Motion Against Import Ban
Apple ITC Motion Against Import Ban

More info:

Published by: Mikey Campbell on Jul 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
PUBLIC
 
VERSIONUNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C.In the Matter of CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES,INCLUDING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONDEVICES, PORTABLE MUSIC AND DATAPROCESSING DEVICES, AND TABLETCOMPUTERS
 
Investigation No. 337-TA-794RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR STAYOF REMEDIAL ORDERS PENDING APPEAL
 
PUBLIC
 
VERSION
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
 
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
 
II.
 
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................3
 
III.
 
LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................4
 
IV.
 
ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................5
 
A.
 
Apple Has a Substantial Case on the Merits and Is Likely To Succeed onAppeal. ................................................................................................................... 6
 
1.
 
The Federal Circuit is likely to reverse the Commission’sdetermination of a violation with respect to the ’348 patent. .................... 6
 
2.
 
The Federal Circuit is likely to vacate the remedies imposed by theCommission. ............................................................................................ 11
 
B.
 
Apple Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent a Stay. ............................................ 12
 
C.
 
The Balance of Hardships Favors Apple. ............................................................ 14
 
D.
 
The Public Interest Strongly Favors Granting a Stay. ......................................... 17
 
1.
 
Immediate implementation of the Orders risks serious harm to U.S. business and patent policy and should not be undertaken beforeappellate review is completed. ................................................................. 18
 
2.
 
Immediate implementation of the Orders will frustrate consumer  preference and have adverse competitive effects. .................................... 21
 
3.
 
Immediate implementation of the Orders will harm innovation. ............. 24
 
V.
 
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................24
 
 
PUBLIC VERSION
- ii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESC
ASES
 
 Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
,869 F. Supp. 2d 901 (N.D. Ill. 2012) ......................................................................... 16, 19, 21
  Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission
, No. 07-1164 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2007) ................................................................................... 6
 Certain Agricultural Tractors Under 50 Power Take-Off Horsepower 
, Inv. No. 337-TA-380, Comm’n Op. (Apr. 24, 1997)
...........................................................................................
5
Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio)Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets
, Inv. No. 337-TA-543, Comm’n Op. (June 21, 2007) ........................ 2, 5
 Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.
,138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (
en banc
) ............................................................................... 7
  Dynatec International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
, No. 99-1504, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 38842 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 1999) ................................. 6
  Heckler v. Turner 
,468 U.S. 1305 (1984) ............................................................................................................. 17
  In re Princo Corp.
,486 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007).............................................................................................. 15
  Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission
, No. 99-1431 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 1999) ....................................................................................... 6
 Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc
.,133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013) ....................................................................................................... 1, 10
 Mayo Collaboration Services v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.
,132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................................................... 11
  MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp.
,420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 10-11
  Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
, No. C10-1823JLR, 2012 WL 5993202 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 30, 2012) ............................ 15, 16
  North America Philips Corp. v. American Vending Sales, Inc.
,35 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1994)................................................................................................ 10
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->