Chinese court rules in favor of Apple in local design patent disputes, lifting iPhone 6/Plus sales ban

“A Chinese court has ruled in favour of Apple in design patent disputes between the Cupertino, California company and a domestic phone-maker, overturning a ban on selling iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus phones in China, Xinhua news agency reported,” Ryan Woo reports for Reuters.

“Last May, a Beijing patent regulator ordered Apple’s Chinese subsidiary and a local retailer Zoomflight to stop selling the iPhones after Shenzhen Baili Marketing Services lodged a complaint, claiming that the patent for the design of its mobile phone 100c was being infringed by the iPhone sales,” Woo reports. “The Beijing Intellectual Property Court on Friday revoked the ban, saying Apple and Zoomflight did not violate Shenzhen Baili’s design patent for 100c phones.”

Woo reports, “The court ruled that the regulator did not follow due procedures in ordering the ban while there was no sufficient proof to claim the designs constituted a violation of intellectual property rights.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote last year: “If Apple’s iPhone infringe on Baili’s, then virtually every smartphone introduced since the iPhone debuted in 2007 infringes on Apple’s design patents.”

The devices compared:

Baili 100+ 100C phone
Baili 100+ 100C phone


Apple iPhone 6
Apple iPhone 6

Apple argues for China’s iPhone 6/Plus sales ban to be lifted – December 8, 2016
Chinese smartphone maker claiming Apple infringed its design patents barely even exists – June 22, 2016
Apple’s patent fight loss in China seen emboldening rivals – June 20, 2016
Jim Cramer: Reports of Apple iPhone’s demise in China are greatly exaggerated – June 17, 2016
Not even Apple can depend on fair treatment in China – June 17, 2016
No, the iPhone hasn’t been hit with a China sales ban, but Apple is in a sticky situation – June 17, 2016
Beijing regulator orders Apple to stop sales of iPhone 6/Plus models – June 17, 2016
Chinese company sues Apple for alleging ‘copying’ their design in iPhone 6 – June 16, 2016<


    1. Well, the problem is exacerbated by clinical psychopaths who, sadly, are the worst case mercenaries of these fields. I’d gladly have a global psychopathy test to comb them out of society and put them to work doing beneficial things, much to their chagrin. However, I suspect a lot of them would figure out how to imitate sane answers for such tests, making them look like they actually have an iota of care about their fellow humans.

      Apparently, psychopathy has its uses in the course of human evolution. But collaring them is critical if we are to survive ourselves into the future.

  1. That pond is a total rip off of earlier iPhone designs and then have the cheek to claim Apple infringes their design paints when it slightly modifies the very designs they copied in the first place. That really is a double whammy. Thankfully common sense has prevailed though can Apple claim damages for its sales losses in the meantime.

    1. IMHO it’s the difference between thinking in reality versus game player thinking. Money, finance, business are all game systems placed on top of the basic human tribal behavior of sharing resources as a mode of survival. When a human believes that game system is their ‘reality’ they’re profoundly disconnected from actual reality.

      As for greed, that’s a foundational human strategy for cheating within a competitive system. There’s a positive incentive and payoff for the individual while cheating the tribe. As such, it’s a social failure. Therefore, marketing strategies are applied in order to fool the society that greed has any sort of imaginary benefit to the society. This is one use of propaganda.

      Here in the USA, we’re living inside of a wonderful example of how greedy people fool society into believing greed ever has a social benefit, when in fact it does not. Suckers pay the price as tools, pawns, fools, victims, hosts of the greed parasites.

      And no, capitalism does not require greed. It requires incentive, which is an entirely different subject. So please, no stupid replies that depend upon a corrupted definition of capitalism. Thank you.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.