A Chinese company suing Apple for patent infringement appears to be virtually non-existent.
Known as Shenzhen Baili Marketing Services, the company filed a lawsuit against Apple in 2014, claiming that the iPhone 6 and 6S looked too much like its 100C phone. Baili wanted a ban placed on iPhone 6 sales in Beijing, something the capital city’s intellectual property regulator was prepared to do. But Apple filed an appeal, which means the iPhone 6 lineup remains on sale in Beijing.
Phone calls to Baili, which is owned by Chinese smartphone manufacturer Digione, were unanswered, according to the Wall Street Journal. Baili’s websites no longer exist. And visits by the Journal to the three registered locations turned up no company offices.
Further, Baili and Digione are both broke as their debt is greater than their overall assets. Digione’s collapse was the result of “buggy products, mismanagement and fierce competition,” former employees and investors told the Journal.The lack of any obvious presence is just the latest wrinkle in the bizarre case that has wrapped up Apple in yet another patent infringement case. The lawsuit highlights the tough environment Apple faces in China, which also ruled earlier this year that Apple doesn’t own the rights to the iPhone trademark.Despite its lack of presence, Baili is “still operational in its necessary functions,” and will continue to fight Apple in court, Digione lawyer Andy Yang told the Journal. Baili may even think about escalating its lawsuit to include the iPhone 6S and iPhone 6S Plus, Yang added. But with its appeal in place, Apple needn’t worry about a ban on iPhone sales in Beijing, at least not for now.
Full Content: The Wall Street Journal
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
EU Conducts First-Ever Raids on a Company Under Foreign Subsidies Regulation
Apr 23, 2024 by
CPI
FTC Moves to Ban Non-Compete Agreements, Aiming to Boost Labor Mobility
Apr 23, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Nods at $418M Deal in Real Estate Antitrust Suit
Apr 23, 2024 by
CPI
Mexican Watchdog Probes Amazon and Mercado Libre Over Loyalty Bundles
Apr 23, 2024 by
CPI
Competition Commission of India to Probe AI Landscape for Competition
Apr 23, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI