Why did no one in China applaud when Apple was found guilty of infringement?

Written in front:

Did iPhone copy the appearance design of domestic mobile phones?

This should be "good news" that will cheer up domestic mobile phone manufacturers and the general public.

However, surprisingly, many people did not come out to "applaud" this administrative law enforcement decision, but instead waited for further review by the court.

This also shows that many people have doubts about whether iPhone 6 copied the design of domestic mobile phones or infringed the appearance design of domestic mobile phones.

On the one hand, this is due to the "preconceived" innovative image of Apple in the minds of the public. On the other hand, this also shows that domestic mobile phones have not yet come up with works in terms of appearance design that are eye-catching and have completely subverted the common appearance design of smartphones.

"Order to stop selling iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus."

Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office made a decision on the "'Mobile Phone (100C)' (Patent No.: ZL201430009113.9) Design Patent Infringement Dispute" (Beijing Intellectual Property Office (2016) No. 854-16), requiring Zhongfu Telecom and Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to stop "promising to sell, selling" and stop "selling" the above two mobile phones respectively.

For a time, the order to stop selling iPhone6/6plus became a hot topic of public concern.

In response, Apple said it had filed an administrative lawsuit against the Beijing Intellectual Property Office last month over the decision, and that iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus products are still being sold normally in the Chinese market.

Surprisingly, this was the first time that a domestic mobile phone manufacturer challenged Apple in terms of "appearance design" and temporarily won, but there didn't seem to be many people in China who applauded it.

Is it that Apple’s “water army” is too powerful, or is it that the public does not fully understand the handling decisions of the relevant departments?

So, with regard to the design infringement dispute caused by "Mobile Phone (100C) (Patent No.: ZL201430009113.9)", did iPhone6/6plus draw on its creativity or craftsmanship? Does it constitute infringement? Has the order to stop selling iPhone6/6plus taken effect?

Patent application: iPhone 6 design application was later than that of mobile phones (100C)

On September 9, 2014, Apple officially launched the iPhone 6. However, the iPhone 6 design patent application was obviously filed before that.

According to information on the U.S. Patent Office website, Apple submitted an application for an appearance design patent for the iPhone 6 titled "Electronic device" (patent number: USD731481) in the United States as early as May 5, 2014.

Subsequently, Apple submitted an application for an appearance design patent for iPhone 6 in China on October 31, 2014.

The application date of the design patent involved in the case, “Mobile Phone (100C)” (patent number: ZL201430009113.9), is January 13, 2014.

Therefore, judging from the time of design application alone, the design patent application time of iPhone 6 is later than that of "Mobile Phone (100C)" both in the United States and in China.

The biggest difference between the "Mobile Phone (100C)" design patent submitted by Shenzhen Baili Marketing Service Co., Ltd. and other mobile phone design patents of the same period is that the side of the mobile phone (including the top, bottom, left and right sides) adopts the "arc design" concept, which makes it look more rounded in terms of feel and appearance.

Compared with other iPhone series, this "arc design" is also one of the biggest improvements or changes in the appearance of iPhone 6.

So, since the iPhone 6’s design patent application was filed later than that of “Mobile Phone (100C)”, can we conclude that the iPhone copied or infringed upon the design of “Mobile Phone (100C)”?

Curved design: Apple submitted a similar application as early as 2013

In fact, judging from the “arc-shaped design” concept adopted on the sides or four sides of the mobile phone, it is difficult to simply infer that the iPhone has copied or infringed upon the appearance design of the “mobile phone (100C)”.

As early as March 11, 2013, Apple applied for a design patent in China called "Electronic Device" (patent number: CN302504474S). In addition to continuing the iPhone's usual structural layout on the front, the biggest change in this design compared to products such as the iPhone 4 is the use of the "arc design" concept on the sides or around the phone.

However, unlike the iPhone 6, the side or surrounding appearance design of this phone at that time did not achieve a 360-degree "arc design".

However, it is worth noting that in the design infringement dispute in which the iPhone 6 was ordered to stop selling, the design of the "Mobile Phone (100C)", especially the sides and surroundings, was very similar to the aforementioned design applied for by Apple in 2013.

Focus of dispute: Whether the appearance of iPhone 6 constitutes infringement of "mobile phone (100C)" is difficult to determine

As for the "'Mobile Phone (100C)' (Patent No.: ZL201430009113.9) design patent infringement dispute" that led to the iPhone 6/6 plus being ordered to stop selling, the mobile phone (100C) was granted the design patent on July 9, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, Shenzhen Baili Marketing Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Baili Company") purchased two mobile phones, iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus, at the Zhongfu Telecom Company shopping mall.

Subsequently, Baili Company filed a request for handling with the Beijing Intellectual Property Office on the grounds of patent infringement. After the Beijing Intellectual Property Office accepted the case on January 6, 2015, after obtaining the consent of Baili Company, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office added Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. as a co-respondent and conducted two oral hearings on the case.

On May 10, 2016, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office issued the above-mentioned decision No. Jingzhizhi (2016) 854-16, which determined that iPhone6/6plus constituted infringement of the mobile phone (100C) design patent, and ordered Zhongfu Telecom and Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to stop "promising to sell, selling" and stop "selling" iPhone6/6plus mobile phones respectively.

However, it is worth noting that during the period of dispute identification and processing, Apple obtained the iPhone 6 appearance design patent authorization in China on March 11, 2015.

After iPhone 6 obtained the design patent authorization, whether it is appropriate for the Beijing Intellectual Property Office to continue to determine that iPhone 6/6plus constitutes infringement in the determination and processing document should become the focus of much attention during the court trial stage of the case.

Handling decision: Can the iPhone 6/6 plus, which has been ordered to stop sales, still be sold?

According to Article 11 of the Patent Law, after a patent right for a design is granted, no unit or individual may implement the patent without the permission of the patent owner, that is, they may not manufacture, sell or import the patented design product for production and business purposes.

In the decision of Jingzhizhizi (2016) No. 854-16, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office only required Zhongfu Telecom and Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to stop "promising to sell, selling" and "selling" the iPhone 6/6 plus, respectively. It did not require Apple to prohibit the manufacture of iPhone 6/6 plus.

In addition, Apple responded in an interview with the media that it is still selling normally in the Chinese market. So, can the iPhone 6/6 plus, which has been ordered to stop selling, still be sold?

Although the Patent Law and the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law do not clearly stipulate whether the decision of the patent management department that an infringement is found to constitute infringement should continue to be enforced when a lawsuit is filed.

However, Article 44 of the Patent Administrative Enforcement Measures, a departmental regulation formulated by the State Intellectual Property Office, stipulates that if the department in charge of patent work makes a decision to determine that patent infringement has occurred and orders the infringer to immediately stop the infringement, and the respondent files an administrative lawsuit with the people's court, the execution of the decision shall not be suspended during the litigation.

Obviously, according to the provisions of the "Patent Administrative Enforcement Measures" of the State Intellectual Property Office, although Apple has sued the Beijing Intellectual Property Office in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court for the handling decision of the Beijing Intellectual Property Office, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office's decision to order Zhongfu Telecom and Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to stop "promising to sell, selling" and stop "selling" iPhone6/6plus respectively does not stop execution.

Simply put, according to the regulations of the National Intellectual Property Administration and the decision of the Beijing Intellectual Property Administration, at least in Beijing, Zhongfu Telecom is not allowed to sell or promise to sell iPhone 6/6 plus, and Apple is also not allowed to sell iPhone 6/6 plus.

Rather than "normal sales in the Chinese market" as Apple claims.

As a winner of Toutiao's Qingyun Plan and Baijiahao's Bai+ Plan, the 2019 Baidu Digital Author of the Year, the Baijiahao's Most Popular Author in the Technology Field, the 2019 Sogou Technology and Culture Author, and the 2021 Baijiahao Quarterly Influential Creator, he has won many awards, including the 2013 Sohu Best Industry Media Person, the 2015 China New Media Entrepreneurship Competition Beijing Third Place, the 2015 Guangmang Experience Award, the 2015 China New Media Entrepreneurship Competition Finals Third Place, and the 2018 Baidu Dynamic Annual Powerful Celebrity.