Increase in Apple patent invalidations stems from 2011 law

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, passed in 2011, is the cause of a recent increase in Apple-patent invalidations by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.

Leahy


This week, Apple's "pinch to zoom" patent—viewed as a key property in its patent-infringement lawsuit against Samsung—was invalidated by the USPTO, which cited prior art. The decision came two weeks after another patent related to "touchscreen heuristics" was also invalidated.

The USPTO also invalidated another Apple patent in October related to the "rubber banding" effect that causes the screen to bounce when a user has reached the end of a page.

As noted by Fortune on Thursday, anyone can anonymously request that the USPTO reopen a previously approved patent case with a $17,750 filing fee. In addition, the 2011 law makes it more difficult for the USPTO to deny the request.

Apple's string of patent invalidations have benefited Samsung, which is involved in ongoing patent litigation with Apple, and has also been ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion in an infringement suit in California. The Leahy-Smith Act has given companies an easier patent challenging process, which has led to more inventions being found invalid by the USPTO.

The Leahy-Smith Act was passed by Congress last year to "bring substantial changes changes to the U.S. patents system."
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    Government idiocy and money?! Imagine that...
  • Reply 2 of 59
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, passed in 2011, is the cause of a recent increase in Apple-patent invalidations by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
    <div align="center"><img src="http://photos.appleinsidercdn.com/leahy-121220.jpg" border="0" width="660" height="255" alt="Leahy" /></div>
    This week, Apple?s "pinch to zoom" patent ? viewed as a key property in its patent-infringement <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/24/jury_reaches_verdict_in_apple_v_samsung_trial.html">lawsuit against Samsung</a>? was <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/19/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-invalidated-by-uspto">invalidated</a> by the USPTO, which cited prior art. The decision came two weeks after another patent related to "touchscreen heuristics" was also invalidated.

    As usual, AI can't bother to check the facts.

    The pinch to zoom patent was not invalidated.
  • Reply 3 of 59
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    How many Apple patents have actually been invalidated?
  • Reply 4 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member


    The Obama administration wants to rope in software patents even more. IMO there's a good chance they'll get what they want considering the overwhelming Democratic control.


    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/patenting-software-obama-administration-argues-sometimes.html

  • Reply 5 of 59
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member


    Seriously?  Your whole article is about the fact that Apple's recent patent losses are due to this new law, but you don't explain the law (beyond simply naming it), and don't tell us what it is or why/how it affects Apple's patent litigation???


     


    What's the f*cking point of this?  Stop doing this.  These aren't "articles" at all.  This kind of "whoring for hits" is what places like Engadget and CultofMac do.  

  • Reply 6 of 59

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    The Obama administration wants to rope in software patents even more. IMO there's a good chance they'll get what they want considering the overwhelming Democratic control.


    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/patenting-software-obama-administration-argues-sometimes.html



     


    Not all Democrats think that sort of "patent reform", roping in software patents, is a good idea. In some ways, it's just as stupid as the "tort reform" the other party has been pushing for years. Meaningful patent reform will take us back to the days when you had to submit the "machine" that actually defined what the patent was about, not restricting classes of inventions, like software and computers, despite what that idiot Posner had to say on the subject. (Posner, btw, has things exactly backwards in his analysis.)

  • Reply 7 of 59
    gatorguy wrote: »
    The Obama administration wants to rope in software patents even more. IMO there's a good chance they'll get what they want considering the overwhelming Democratic control.
    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/patenting-software-obama-administration-argues-sometimes.html

    Since this patent reform law passed the US House in 2011, pointing at a Party does not appear to be the cause. Pointing at an ideology in common seems more appropriate.

    We the People ask for reform and bitch with statements like "the patent system is broken". When Congress (Government) acts, bad things are more prone to happen than not.
  • Reply 8 of 59
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    How many Apple patents have actually been invalidated?


     


    So far? None, I think.


     


    But a whole bucket load are under review.

  • Reply 9 of 59
    normmnormm Posts: 653member
    I really think that some AAPL investors should sue AppleInsider over these misleading stories. Are you being paid to do this? No Apple patents have been invalidated recently. A first office action in a re-examination proceeding is almost meaningless. To use this "news" to write scurrilous headlines is criminal, in my opinion.
  • Reply 10 of 59
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    Seriously?  Your whole article is about the fact that Apple's recent patent losses are due to this new law, but you don't explain the law (beyond simply naming it), and don't tell us what it is or why/how it affects Apple's patent litigation???


     


    What's the f*cking point of this?  Stop doing this.  These aren't "articles" at all.  This kind of "whoring for hits" is what places like Engadget and CultofMac do.  



     


    Well, this isn't actually a 'news' site, is it?  The problem is that most of Apple's customers don't tend to spend web time surfing Mac rumour sites, which means that best way for these blogs to attract hits is to bring in Android users, who do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on Mac rumour sites.


     


    It's a shame to see AppleInsider hit the skids like this (I suspect falling readership is the reason behind it), but it's the way of the world it seems. Now I think about it, I can't remember the last time I saw a 'story' here that I haven't read elsewhere first.


     


    If you want a reasonably informed opinion (warts and all) then MacObserver is probably a better bet. Here's how they headlined the same pinch to zoom story:


     


    http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apples-pinch-to-zoom-patent-tentatively-ruled-invalid

  • Reply 11 of 59
    I believe Apple applied for this patent prior to the launch of the original iPhone, right? The USPTO granted the patent at that time. How can a law come along 5 years later and "undo" something that was granted 5 years prior? That's like giving you a marriage license one day, but the following week saying your marriage is no longer valid even though you have a license... oh wait.
  • Reply 12 of 59


    Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

    How can a law come along 5 years later and "undo" something that was granted 5 years prior?


     


    Same way that Prohibition was repealed, probably. At least that's how they'll try to spin it.

  • Reply 13 of 59
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post



    I believe Apple applied for this patent prior to the launch of the original iPhone, right? The USPTO granted the patent at that time. How can a law come along 5 years later and "undo" something that was granted 5 years prior? That's like giving you a marriage license one day, but the following week saying your marriage is no longer valid even though you have a license... oh wait.


     


    Are they actually undoing the law or just making it easier for people to appeal against existing patents?

  • Reply 14 of 59
    ****STOCK HOLDERS PLEASE READ. I have been a close Apple watcher and shareholder for many years. I hope that the readers on AI who are stock holders are not getting spooked and selling their shares. Apple stock is down because of bad economies and analyst-generated rumours. Apple is cunning and swift. They know what is happening in the market, and they know what their competition is doing. They just released a brand new product (the iPad Mini), and while it's not the revolution that the iPhone was, it's a huge seller in many more markets than the iPhone was when it was released. The iPad Mini is going to go on to sell in ridiculous volumes because it is far superior to the competition. At the end of the day remember it's not really a market share battle for Apple. People are saying that apple hasn't released a revolutionary product in a very long time. This just isn't true, and isn't something to worry about. Steve passed about just over a year ago. Apple had plenty of work to do. They had to minimize the worry in stockholders while implementing strategies to keep the company's spirit intact. Now that Tim has made executive changes, we are going to see many great things in the coming months and years. Keep in mind that Apple keeps everything they do under wraps. iPhone parts leak, but software, for the most part, does not. Apple has big things up its sleeve, and plenty of cash to make those things happen. We will see an Apple television. Remember this is only the beginning, just like the iPhone. It came out with minimal apps. Developers will do things with the Apple television that we have never even dreamed of before. There will also be many new software programs and updates in the future that will set Apple apart from its competitors. Apple server based services are just now starting to hit their stride. We haven't even begun to see what is possible with cloud computing. To wrap things up, Apple's customer base is growing at a faster pace than ever before, even though it may seem that their market share is dropping. This is just a result of the market they created, becoming the new standard. It is not eating away at their customer base, and definitely not at their profits. So my advice to stock holders is stay calm and carry on. Apple will recover to 700 a share. I believe they will even surpass that price once the hysteria from analysts blows over. Merry Christmas & happy holidays to AI & its readers!
  • Reply 15 of 59

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Same way that Prohibition was repealed, probably. At least that's how they'll try to spin it.



     


    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:


     


    Quote:


    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.



     


    So, it's debatable, at least, whether they can, through legislation, invalidate patents already granted.


     


    Note, the repeal of Prohibition didn't make anything that happened during Prohibition a crime retroactively.

  • Reply 16 of 59


    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

    …the U.S. Constitution:


     


    There's your problem: listening to that. image

  • Reply 17 of 59

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    How many Apple patents have actually been invalidated?


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    Seriously?  Your whole article is about the fact that Apple's recent patent losses are due to this new law, but you don't explain the law (beyond simply naming it), and don't tell us what it is or why/how it affects Apple's patent litigation???


     


    What's the f*cking point of this?  Stop doing this.  These aren't "articles" at all.  This kind of "whoring for hits" is what places like Engadget and CultofMac do.  



    In all fairness, however, even supposedly credible, mainstream news outlets have the same crap pasted all over their front pages: see, e.g., The Wall Street Journal: "Apple 'Pinch to Zoom Patent Rejected by US In Initial Ruling" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323277504578189891418492784.html?mod=WSJ__LEFTTopStories


     


    Ugh. Actual facts (and context) just seem to be largely irrelevant in so much of the reporting......

  • Reply 18 of 59
    Why are there incomplete sentences in that "article"... ?
  • Reply 19 of 59

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, passed in 2011......


    Any Act with the name "Leahy" on it should be automatically invalidated, imho.


     


    Can't believe that guy is now third in line for the US presidency.... he's just so past his sell-by date.

  • Reply 20 of 59
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

Sign In or Register to comment.