UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS THEREOF Investigation No. 337-TA-1065
RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S WRITTEN SUBMISSION REGARDING THE COMMISSION’S QUESTIONS ON THE ISSUES UNDER REVIEW, AND ON REMEDY, BONDING, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST (83 Fed. Reg. 64875 (Dec. 18, 2018))
PUBLIC VERSION
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 II. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ’490 PATENT .............................. 1 QUESTION A ................................................................................................................. 1 QUESTION B ................................................................................................................. 7 QUESTION C ............................................................................................................... 10 QUESTION D ............................................................................................................... 17 QUESTION E ............................................................................................................... 18 QUESTION F ................................................................................................................ 19 QUESTION G ............................................................................................................... 21 QUESTION H ............................................................................................................... 22 QUESTION I ................................................................................................................ 26 III. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST .................. 29 QUESTION A ............................................................................................................... 29 A. Hearing Evidence on Design Changes. ............................................................... 30 B. The Recent Design Change To The Accused Products—Which Qualcomm Conceded Would Not Infringe............................................................................ 31 QUESTION B ............................................................................................................... 32 QUESTION C ............................................................................................................... 36 A. A Carve-Out For 5G-Capable iPhone Models Without A Delay Would Not Prevent Intel’s Exit From The Market For Premium Baseband Chipsets. ............................................................................................................ 37 1. A 5G Carve-Out Would Not Be Sufficient to Prevent Intel from Losing Apple’s 4G Baseband Chipset Business. ..................................... 37 2. Without Apple’s 4G Business, Intel Would Lack Critical Revenue And Access To The U.S. Market. ........................................................... 38
PUBLIC VERSION
-ii -B.A Carve-Out For Research And Testing Would Be Insufficient. ......................... 41 QUESTION D ............................................................................................................... 43 QUESTION E ............................................................................................................... 45 A.The Commission Should Consider National Security Concerns. ......................... 46 B.5G Presents Critical National Security Concerns. ............................................... 46 C.The Loss Of Intel As A Baseband Chipset Supplier Would Harm U.S.National Security Interests. ................................................................................ 50 IV.REMEDY AND BONDING .......................................................................................... 53 A.Any Remedy Should Contain A Certification Provision And ExemptionsFor Imported Spare Parts And Replacement Articles And ExistingInventory. .......................................................................................................... 53 B.No Bond Should Be Required In Any Remedial Order. ...................................... 55
PUBLIC VERSION