comScore
Uncategorized Tuesday, October 23rd 2012 at 8:40 am

U.S. Patent Office Invalidates Apple Patent Used in Samsung Trial, Puts Jury Ruling at Risk

By ( ) Comments

These days, patents are used more in legal posturing than just about anything else. It goes to show just how ludicrous the system is, however, that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has filed an invalidation for Apple’s U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381. All 20 claims of Apple’s rubber-banding patent are now officially on their way to being thrown out. This includes the same claim 19 that was used against Samsung in the company’s recent high-profile trial.

In the end, the jury ruled that Samsung owed Apple $1.049 billion for copying the design of the iPhone, but this non-final decision from the USPTO could see the ruling receive new scrutiny. Samsung’s already filed a motion to have the judge consider exactly that. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to stick, however.

The reexamination rejected claim 19 based on anticipation by two prior patents. That means that, essentially, the examiner concluded that there was literally nothing inventive about Apple’s claim that wasn’t already represented previously. Not only would Apple have to convince the USPTO that their claim was something new in order to refute the decision, they’d have to prove that it was a significant enough step away from the original to justify the patent being awarded at all.

Given that this is a non-final decision, Apple will surely put forth all of its legal might to see their side through to the end. They’re not done fighting just yet. There’s still a ways to go yet before the patent is thrown out, but it surely will help weigh things in Samsung’s favor for the time being.

(FOSS Patents via AppleInsider, Hacker News, image via Hatmanu Florin)

Relevant to your interests

Filed Under | • • •
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687991878 Dave Diem Martinez

    I wonder how much the USPTO officer is getting paid on the back end by Samsung :-)

  • silence

    Why is the USPTO just now deciding to invalidate the patent? Why did they allow it to become a patent in the first place? It kinda seems to me, that someone did not agree with the verdict, and thus is doing everything in their power to change the outcome.

  • Rollin Bishop

    The challenge actually originated back from earlier this year, and was apparently from an anonymous source. It’s only just now going through.

    As to why it was granted in the first place, examiners are under a lot of pressure to push patents through the system. IMO, they don’t get enough time to give any one patent a real thorough look.

  • Asreal

    Good article! I hope this goes some way to ending Apple’s run of lawsuit sillyness.

    Time spent in the courts would be better spent in R&D.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002291703668 William Marcum

    Let’s be honest.. Apple want’s to argue that they created the idea of having rounded corners, and even bezels. This is ridiculous.

  • Farsot

    Wonder who is the original patent holder of which apple has not improved on and samsung has copied as well? Guess that company/individual has some billions to collect from Apple and Samsung both.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jackhsquires Jack Squires

    R&D? don’t be silly, other companies do that for Apple, they just work out the best combinations and then stick a faceroll price tag on it. This iDevice will cost you… $45210.1758693!

  • Idlethoughts

    there doesn’t necessarily need to be one, if an unpatented example of the idea that your trying to patent existed then your not allowed to patent it, that way its about who thought of/did it first not who was able to patent it first.

  • Anonymous

    I find slide to unlock equally as ridiculous.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder how much they were originally paid by Apple to let ridiculous patents like rounded corners and slide to unlock through in the first place.

  • ronf57

    actually i believe Apple filed this one over 4 times and was rejected 3 times as not patentable. The 4th patent reviewer just didn’t have his coffee that morning and said “aw, what the hell..let ‘em have it”