14 DAY TRIAL // Apple filed an appeal with the Chinese Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court asking for the reversal of the ban imposed on all iPhone models it released since the iPhone 6S.
"Qualcomm’s effort to ban our products is another desperate move by a company whose illegal practices are under investigation by regulators around the world," Apple said in a statement to CNBC.
Qualcomm said in a press release on Monday that the Chinese court issued two preliminary injunctions against Chinese Apple subsidiaries "ordering them to immediately cease infringing upon two Qualcomm patents through the unlicensed importation, sale and offers for sale in China of the iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X."
Despite the ruling issued by the Chinese court, Apple said that it will still keep selling its smartphones given that the ban went beyond the scope of the two injunctions.
"All iPhone models remain available for our customers in China. Qualcomm is asserting three patents they had never raised before, including one which has already been invalidated. We will pursue all our legal options through the courts."
Apple claims the patents it allegedly breached are not specific to the latest iOS release
According to Apple, the scope of the ban is baseless given that the two patents Qualcomm claims it has breached are not specific to the operating system used by Cupertino in its latest smartphone line uses.
As detailed in Qualcomm's press release following the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court ruling, the software patents Apple was found to be infringing are designed to help users reformat and change the appearance and size of photographs, as well as to manage apps when navigating between and dismissing applications.
Qualcomm also stated that it has other legal actions regarding Apple's infringement on various other patents pending in multiple jurisdictions in both China and courts from all over the world.
The legal battle between Qualcomm and Apple is an ongoing one for the past few years with both companies suing each other on various counts and in multiple courts.