Swedish company claims rights to 'slide to unlock' with new UI patent
A patent issued to Swedish touchscreen technology company Neonode for a 'sweep gesture' user interface could mean legal trouble for Apple, which is currently embroiled in a dispute with Motorola and Samsung over its 'slide to unlock' patent.
In a press release issued on Tuesday, Neonode says it was issued U.S. Patent which covers gesture-based interaction with a touch sensitive surface, a description that is similar to Apple's "slide to unlock" patent.
According to Neonode’s head of IP, Yossi Shain, the '879 patent was first filed for in 2002 and the company has been shopping the technology around since the IP was issued on January 10, 2012, reports TechCrunch.
Apple is supposedly the first target for Neonode, though Shain said the company is looking for "friendly licensing" deals before pursuing patent infringement lawsuits.
Neonode claims that it has successfully marketed and sold licenses of other touchscreen patents to to a number of "tier-one" OEMs and ODMs, with the technology being used in devices such as e-readers from Sony and Barnes and Noble, according to TechCrunch.
The '879 patent is meant to complement the Swedish company's other U.S. Patents, and the relating , which cover tech for small to midsize touchscreen devices. In addition, Neonode reportedly has similar patents pending in other undisclosed countries.
Patent drawings illustrating Neonode's swipe gesture UI. Source:
If Apple is indeed sued over the '879 patent, it wouldn't be the first time the company has seen Neonode in a court hearing. In August 2011, Samsung trotted out a relatively obscure device made by the Swedish company in defense of an Apple suit regarding "slide to unlock" functionality.
A European Windows CE handset, the Neonode N1m was shown as evidence that Apple's claims were not inventive as the device was manufactured before the iPhone maker filed its "slide to unlock" U.S. Patent in 2005. The Apple complaint was ultimately dismissed.
Most recently, however, Apple was successful in winning a German injunction against Motorola' use of gesture-based device unlocking after leveraging a European counterpart to its '849 patent.
Despite the European win, the Neonode IP could prove disruptive to Apple's continuing legal battle against Motorola and Samsung if the Swedish company forces the Cupertino, Calif., company to pay licensing fees or takes the matter to court.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
So it comes down to a US Patent Office Blunder?
Issuing the same patent to two different companies?
Does this happen often?
And in the end who is to blame? Isn't it the Patent Office's job to avoid this?
Can you sue the US Patent Office?
The present invention relates to a user interface for a mobile handheld computer unit, which computer unit comprises a touch sensitive area (1), which is divided into a menu area (2) and a display area (3). The computer unit is adapted to run several applications simultaneously and to present an active application on top of any other application on the display area (3). The menu area (2) is adapted to present a representation of a first (21), a second (22) and a third predefined (23) function. The first function (21) is a general application dependent function, the second function (22) is a keyboard function, and the third function (23) is a task and file manager. Any one of these three functions can be activated when the touch sensitive area (1) detects a movement of an object with its starting point within the representation of the function on the menu area (2) and with a direction from the menu area (2) to the display area (3).
This sounds like a "handheld computer" that has a separate menu area and a display area. This is more like an e-reader than an iPad or iPhone, and as noted in the story, they've licensed to e-reader companies. Apple will have no discussions with these people.
Hmmm, not quite getting this.
So it comes down to a US Patent Office Blunder?
Issuing the same patent to two different companies?
Does this happen often?
And in the end who is to blame? Isn't it the Patent Office's job to avoid this?
Can you sue the US Patent Office?
I think all the patent office does is decide if the idea is patentable. It's up to Apple to hire a patent search to make sure they were first. It's odd that this other company applied for a patent in 2002 and only now got awarded a patent, where Apple seemed to get the patent awarded first, but may not have applied first. What's with that??
I think all the patent office does is decide if the idea is patentable. It's up to Apple to hire a patent search to make sure they were first. It's odd that this other company applied for a patent in 2002 and only now got awarded a patent, where Apple seemed to get the patent awarded first, but may not have applied first. What's with that??
Seriously, why did it take a decade to get the patent?
Hmmm, not quite getting this.
So it comes down to a US Patent Office Blunder?
Issuing the same patent to two different companies?
Does this happen often?
And in the end who is to blame? Isn't it the Patent Office's job to avoid this?
Can you sue the US Patent Office?
Not an office blunder and this patent won't nullify Apple's patent.
This patent isn't a problem for Apple. Their patent clearly states:
This sounds like a "handheld computer" that has a separate menu area and a display area. This is more like an e-reader than an iPad or iPhone, and as noted in the story, they've licensed to e-reader companies. Apple will have no discussions with these people.
See this link, then column six towards the bottom and continuing on. It's a much better description.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8095...page&q&f=false
This patent isn't a problem for Apple. Their patent clearly states:
This sounds like a "handheld computer" that has a separate menu area and a display area. This is more like an e-reader than an iPad or iPhone, and as noted in the story, they've licensed to e-reader companies. Apple will have no discussions with these people.
Agreed. Once again 99.9/100 posters know nothing of the Patent System.
Agreed. Once again 99.9/100 posters know nothing of the Patent System.
You're correct. I'm more likely to trust the patent attorneys and their court-approved experts. Now which of the posters were those again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
Looks like there may be a possibility that Neonode beat Apple to the punch. If so, I'm sure they'll work out a mutually acceptable solution.
Of course, if Neonode does have a valid claim it means that all touchscreen devices that register some sort of moving gesture on a touchscreen are in the same boat. In other words, that's all Android, Bada, PlayBook, BB X, WinPh, WebOS, et al. mobile OSes, not to mention laptops, desktops and other computing devices that have touchscreens.
Here's a video posted on June 29, 2007 showing the Neonode N1M device:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0
Looks like there may be a possibility that Neonode beat Apple to the punch. If so, I'm sure they'll work out a mutually acceptable solution.
There is nothing in the N1M that beat Apple to the punch if you look at the original iPhone.
Cheeze, when you become the biggest company in the US, they really come out of the woodwork, don't they? Where was this dispute 5 years ago?
In all fairness the patent was just granted and we don't know if they did contact Apple back in 2007.
Cheeze, when you become the biggest company in the US, they really come out of the woodwork, don't they? Where was this dispute 5 years ago?
Waiting for the patent to be issued?
It could be held up as a case of prior art but the Apple patent is sufficiently different and specific to be allowed.
There is nothing in the N1M that beat Apple to the punch if you look at the original iPhone.
I think there was a version of the N1M with the gesture that preceded the iPhone. In additional, Neonode patent was filed in 2002, which is way before Apple's applied for its version of the slide-to-unlock gesture.
Seeing as the Apple patent is very specific to the iPhone version of slide to unlock it does not infringe on this patent. Just as the method to unlock screens on newer Android devices is different enough not to infringe on Apples patent although they clearly slide a finger to unlock. But that is not what is in Apples patent.
It could be held up as a case of prior art but the Apple patent is sufficiently different and specific to be allowed.
Good point. Apple's claim is very specific.
I think there was a version of the N1M with the gesture that preceded the iPhone. In additional, Neonode patent was filed in 2002, which is way before Apple's applied for its version of the slide-to-unlock gesture.
There is, but that doesn't mean Neonode's patent is valid in terms of Apple's implementation.