California judge throws out Proview's U.S. iPad lawsuit

California judge throws out Proview's U.S. iPad lawsuit
Proview may no longer be a big name in electronics, but when it comes to suing other companies they clearly have been watching the “big boys” do it. So when they felt that Apple wasn’t responding quickly enough to their request for a $2 billion dollar buyout of their iPad trademark on mainland China, they filed a lawsuit in another country – namely here in the United States.

Unfortunately for Proview, a California Judge has now dismissed that case, agreeing with Apple’s argument that both parties had already agreed to settle their dispute in the Hong Kong courts. The judge found that Proview had not provided any evidence that the parties negotiations in Hong Kong were in some way biased against Proview, so they lacked grounds to sue Apple in the U.S.

Not surprisingly, Proview takes issue with this ruling, and their lawyer released a statement that said the decision “was not based on the merits of the case.” Proview’s statement indicated they have not yet given up on U.S. litigation, adding We are looking forward to presenting the facts in the case to the appellate court, and we are confident that the facts will show that Apple fraudulently obtained the iPad trademarks.

Meanwhile, both sides continue to work together in mediated negotiations with the Guangdong Higher Peoples Court, where Apple submitted a new settlement offer yesterday (presumably with a number significantly south of two billion). Given the importance of the Chinese market to Apple and other mobile device manufacturers, we can assume it’s only a matter of time (and leverage) until a deal gets done.

source: WSJ



1. ilia1986 unregistered


3. tward291

Posts: 559; Member since: Feb 14, 2012

Lol this doesn't mean anything for china

5. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

Provide wasn't going to win this. There's no way Apple won't be able to use the iPad name. Here or China.

9. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

Proview... not "provide". lol they are not trying to ban the iPad name, they are trying to get PAID for Apple's illegal use of the name in china. Apple does not hold the rights to "iPad" in china, so thus they are infringing on Proview's trademark.. which had the name years before apple got into the mobile space. If your going to comment, at least pretend you have some idea of what is going on.

12. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

And Apple paid for the name. Of course in your mind Apple is messing up because your anti Apple regardless of facts. You've proven that many times with your tactless and uneducated posts.

10. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

I'm no expert in court law, but since when does an international case have any merit on judgments in american cases? If and when proview gets what they want in china, do they get to resue in america?

40. greathero1

Posts: 584; Member since: Jun 13, 2008

Maybe because the patent in question is exclusive to China. It has no bearing here in the US. No need to tie our courts up over something not relevant on our soil. This is about using the iPad name in China.

49. Lucas777

Posts: 2137; Member since: Jan 06, 2011

i am almost positive proview does not have the rights to ipad in america… if they do they are probably settling for the entire name everywhere… proview is just trying to get a second opinion in case the first failed, but apparently that backfired

51. Scott_H

Posts: 167; Member since: Oct 28, 2011

Actually, under U.S. law companies can be held responsible for fraud, bribes, and other illegal activity that occurs in other countries. So if Proview could really show that Apple committed fraud, they might have a case. But since they seem to have signed an agreement (or otherwise conveyed to Apple) that they agreed to deal with this issue in China, the U.S. judge saw no reason to hear the case.

27. sithman

Posts: 299; Member since: Apr 21, 2012

Taco50 wins!!! Sit down Remixfa

31. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

haha.. lol all the trolls gather. The more you side with taco, the more i know im right.. especially since taco's "evidence" reinforces exactly what ive been saying.

38. greathero1

Posts: 584; Member since: Jun 13, 2008

Not necessarily so. Taco has a very valid point. "Proview claims that the Taipei subsidiary of its Hong Kong-based parent, Proview International Holdings Limited, registered the iPad trademark in a number of countries and regions as early as 2000." Though Apple brought the rights to use the iPad trademark from Proview Taipei in 2009." If they paid the company who applied and registered the patent, then Apple does have a point as Proview Shenzhen did not apply or register the patent. If the patent was purchased for or in the name of the holding company, I fail to see how they paid the wrong person. Proview Shenzhen did not register for the patent, Proview Taipai did. Also, I really don't see Proview Shenzhen's argument. They say they are a different subsidiary but it should not matter. The patent was purchased for the holding company which they are apart of. I don't know. Maybe I am missing something here. Was there some kind of language with the patent that required approval from all of Proview Holding subsidiaries or something? This is a interesting one, either way.

39. troybuilt

Posts: 155; Member since: Dec 16, 2011

Yes, I'm sure they're all taco's sub accounts. I'm sure he's got several of them. He has daily conversations with himself and thumbs up his own posts. lol

42. greathero1

Posts: 584; Member since: Jun 13, 2008

Oh ok. Now i see the part where it says that Proview Shenzhen did register the name in China. Well, looks like if they want to use the name in China, then they are going to have to pay to use it. My bad but I do think Taco has a valid point. This should have been thrown out in the US. Proview Shenzhen's patent is only applicable in China from the looks of it.

44. gallitoking

Posts: 4721; Member since: May 17, 2011

this doesnt look good for remix.. track record...

45. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

As far as I know they only hold the rights in china, not the entire world. I dont know if the american suite should be thrown out or not. None of us are lawyers working the case. They wouldnt have brought it here had they thought that there was nothing to gain, so there was a reason for it.

43. theoak

Posts: 324; Member since: Nov 16, 2011

Proview needs to be careful. Apple has to be making a boatload of money for China. If they tick Apple off enough ... with the money that Apple has ... Apple could say ... "fine" ... and high tail it out of China and build the iStuff somewhere else. I am not saying that it would be easy for Apple to do that. But if I was sitting on a pile of money and the locals were giving me a hard time ... I would have no reservations of jumping ship.

46. greathero1

Posts: 584; Member since: Jun 13, 2008

I don't think that will ever happen. Right now, the only way for Apple to squeeze the type of margins out of their products and supply chain is because where the manufacturing is done. The deal they are getting from the likes of Foxconn is too good. Maybe they could diversify production over time but that will take time. They should pay Proview $50 million and keep doing what they do best, make attractive products and money.

47. tedkord

Posts: 17417; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

With all the pirating and copying and stealing the Chinese turn a blind toward on their shores, I say screw 'em. I'm on Apple's side on this one.


Posts: 73; Member since: May 08, 2012


53. InspectorGadget80 unregistered

Yet another American judge gets paid by APPLE GREEDY LAWYERS.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.