U.S. International Trade Commission Declines to Block iPhone Imports in Ongoing Apple v. Qualcomm Case - MacRumorsOpen MenuShow RoundupsShow Forums menuVisit ForumsOpen Sidebar
Skip to Content

U.S. International Trade Commission Declines to Block iPhone Imports in Ongoing Apple v. Qualcomm Case

The United States International Trade Commission will not be blocking imports of the iPhone in the ongoing Apple v. Qualcomm case, reports Reuters.

Qualcomm had asked the ITC to ban imports of the AT&T and T-Mobile iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X models that use chips from Intel, citing multiple patent violations.

qualcomm iphone 7
Qualcomm did not ask for a ban on iPhones that use Qualcomm LTE chips, with the reasoning that a more limited exclusion order was more likely to be granted.

An ITC judge said on Friday that while Apple's iPhones infringe on a patent related to power management technology, a ban will not be put in place. The judge cited "public interest factors" as one of the reasons why the court ruled against Qualcomm.

Neither Apple nor Qualcomm have commented on the decision as of yet, but it marks a major victory for Apple in its months-long legal battle with Qualcomm.

The two companies have been embroiled in an increasingly tense legal feud that kicked off in January 2017. Qualcomm and Apple have filed several more than a dozen lawsuits against one another since then.

Apple has accused Qualcomm of charging unfair royalties for "technologies they have nothing to do with," while Qualcomm claims that its inventions form the "very core" of modern mobile communication.

Earlier this week, Qualcomm further escalated the dispute by accusing Apple of providing confidential trade information and trade secrets stolen from Qualcomm to Intel.

Popular Stories

Jon Prosser Rainbow

Apple Agrees to Let Jon Prosser Formally Contest iOS 26 Leak Lawsuit

Thursday June 11, 2026 7:57 am PDT by
Apple and leaker Jon Prosser have jointly asked a federal court to set aside the default judgment entered against him last October, with Prosser agreeing to hand over documents he had thus far failed to fully produce. Apple filed suit against Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti in July 2025, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets after Prosser published videos showing recreated renderings of ...
iCloud General Feature Redux

UK iCloud Users Could Claim £77 Each as Apple Case Heads to Trial

Tuesday June 23, 2026 1:49 am PDT by
A class action lawsuit accusing Apple of overcharging U.K. iCloud users has been certified to go ahead, putting the £3 billion ($3.9 billion) claim on track for a trial in October 2028. According to BBC News, the Competition Appeal Tribunal cleared consumer group Which? to bring the case on behalf of an estimated 40 million U.K. iPhone and iPad owners, each of whom could receive up to £77...
app store blue banner epic 1

Supreme Court Will Hear Apple's Appeal in Epic Games App Store Fight

Tuesday June 30, 2026 10:34 am PDT by
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear Apple's appeal against the contempt ruling that forced it to change its App Store linking rules, reports Reuters. In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said the court's decision was welcome news. This is an important question of law and we are pleased the Supreme Court will hear our case. Apple asked the Supreme Court to review the decision...

Top Rated Comments

AngerDanger Avatar
101 months ago
I can't help but think of that terrible Batman v Superman film whenever I see the names of court cases anymore.



Attachment Image
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
velocityg4 Avatar
101 months ago
Sorry Qualcomm. Apple is now a big part of the US economy. As far as a single company is concerned anyway. Their sales and profit volume are too important. It would take a lot more than a simple patent dispute to convince the government to stop imports. Their net income is double your net sales. With Apple switching to Intel for their modems. Your net sales are going way down.

Even if Apple loses and has to pay. It will be many years from now. The victory will be a pyrrhic victory.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Quu Avatar
101 months ago
The judge cited "public interest factors" as one of the reasons why the court ruled against Qualcomm.
Aka the iPhone is too popular to block so we won't be doing that.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
djcerla Avatar
101 months ago
Common sense prevailed.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
101 months ago
‘Public interest factors’.. or in other words a US company in the US, [...]
Qualcomm is an US company, too. But probably not as popular as Apple. :)
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)
zorinlynx Avatar
101 months ago
Aka the iPhone is too popular to block so we won't be doing that.
Not just that, the case is still ongoing. Why shouldn't Apple be able to continue to sell their product until the case is decided?

Once that happens, the court can award damages if there are any, etc. But while the case is ongoing, blocking imports is ludicrous.
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)