USPTO invalidates all claims of 'Steve Jobs' multi-touch patent - Page 2

Yeah but not reexamined.

This is usually what happens.

Company A sues company B over a patent.

Company B or company B's friend/s goes to the Patent office and says what the hell reexamine these patents!

Now what happens is either both parties agree to the reexamination in order to take validity out of the hands of the jury, or company A decides to let the jury handle it or both decide to let the jury handle it taken it out the patent office.

So in the Apple vs Samsung case, the rubber banding patent was upheld by the Jury.

But that doesn't matter, because in May, one of samsung's friends (we all know its google) challenged Apple patents.

Patent office reexamination trumps jury.

So if the rubber banding invalidity gets held up by the patent office doesn't matter what the jury says.

Any patent that list management as "inventors" is bound to be weak.

Incompetents in the Patent Office...Plain and simple....

You take this stuff too personally. First you already noted the word preliminary, suggesting it's still up for appeal. The patent system itself isn't perfect, which is why it has ways to challenge these things. I wouldn't care if all of these patents asserted on both sides received closer scrutiny. It might lighten the amount of long term litigation. The trials are dumb anyway. These things should be handled by expert review and binding arbitration rather than a group of people who can't possibly absorb all of the information delivered in that time.

 

I certainly question the competency of the USPTO, but it also doesn't help that Apple massively abuses the system. For example, their 'Siri' patent application was submitted to the USPTO a mind-blowing 10 times before finally being accepted! When you are able to spam the USPTO like this with patent applications, of course a few are going to 'sneak through the cracks'.

 

That's called a lawsuit. It's already done. The time and place for the patent to be invalidated was the lawsuit involving it. That didn't happen. It's not invalid.

 

Ri~ght…

There's absolutely nothing unusual about a patents claims being trimmed or the patent tossed out altogether on reexamination by the USPTO. Nearly 15% of patents are invalidated altogether and another 63% of them trimmed back after an ex-parte reexam (like this was). Inter-partes reexams are even more successful with fully 90% of the questioned patents tossed or their claims amended. 

 

So whats the difference between the two? In an ex parte reexam the entity or person requesting it can remain anonymous. The downside is that they cannot participate in the process. Once they submit the reexamination request accompanied by the appropriate evidence of invalidity they're done. Everything from that point is between the patent office and the patent holder with no input permitted by the challenger. If the outcome isn't to their liking then tough.

 

An inter-parte reexam requires the challenger to to be identified. The big advantage tho is that they remain in the discussion and negotiations between patentee and patent office. They can argue their points, disagree with the patent holder and/or patent office, submit more supporting paperwork if needed and appeal the decision if it's unfavorable to them. For these reasons inter-parte exams are more common, and of course more successful. This particular case was not one of those, perhaps showing the strength of the submitted proof of invalidity.

 

There's nothing devious about having a patent challenged, nor even having it invalidated. It happens. . . often!

Edited by Gatorguy - 12/7/12 at 4:44pm

I don't think there's a final ruling yet TS. That's part of what the hearing yesterday was about.  That piece of Apple's win could still be tossed or modified by the court I believe. Not entirely positive but I'll do some more research.

 

In any event this wasn't at all unexpected. Judge Koh herself felt that particular patent would be invalidated.

 

EDIT: The discussion of how to handle likely patent invalidity yesterday in Judge Koh's courtroom involved Apple's asserted '381 "rubber-band" patent which was also found invalid by the USPTO back in late October. It was not the '949 touch patent discussed here and asserted against Samsung in a lawsuit begun last year in a separate tho related case.

Edited by Gatorguy - 12/7/12 at 5:03pm

According to a poster on MacRumors the Samsung trial did not involve this patent. If that's the case I can't see it changing the outcome of the trial. Of course it's a bad time for this to become public,

I'd be curious to know how man Samsung patents have been invalidated that we never hear about since all people seem to care about are Apple patents. When I searched USPTO's database I saw a number of "rounded rectangle" design patents awarded to Samsung. Why would you patent something if you weren't prepared to defend it?

The '949 patent discussed here was included in Apple's infringement claims against Samsung AFAIK.

 

EDIT: I confirmed that Apple went after Samsung with this patent, but not in the Billion Dollar case. It was a different suit heard by the same Judge Koh where Apple demanded an injunction on Sammy's Galaxy devices including the Nexus for infringing on the '949 touch patent.

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/10/14/u-s-judge-koh-says-samsung-tablets-infringe-on-apples-patents/

 

Thanks Rogifan!

Edited by Gatorguy - 12/7/12 at 5:03pm

Nothing to see here until there's a final ruling. Has anyone looked at the patent? It's not some simple "if you touch the screen then this happens". It is a very detailed patent with a significant number of other patent references and detailed descriptions. As with many other re-examinations, the USPTO simply took the easy way out - they passed the ball back to Apple's court. Now Apple has to spend the time & money to convince the USPTO their patent is valid. The USPTO just didn't want to make a ruling with such far-reaching implications based on their very limited resources to examine patents.

 

I see GG has brought up the same stats as the last thread on the previous patent Apple had preliminarily invalidated. This time you never provided the links to your sources. There's one big flaw with your numbers and the studies you took them from (unless you found a new source) - those numbers aren't broken down by industry or company.

 

The chances of Jim-Bob getting his "engine that runs on water" patent invalidated are very good. Likewise, smaller companies who can't afford to do the research or pay lawyers to check things over would also have a higher chance of getting their patents invalidated. Companies like Apple spend a lot of money on R&D and have legal departments specifically assigned just to deal with patent issues. You can bet Apple has covered all their bases with their patent applications and the percentage of patents they get invalidated wouldn't be anywhere near the numbers GG provided.

Lawsuits don't necessarily determine validity. When they come up, these things tend to be examined. I mentioned the jury issue as it's not possible for a random group of jurors to be knowledgeable on these matters. I mentioned the same thing about the Motorola case. It should be determined by binding arbitration rather than a panel of jurors with little background knowledge on the subject. It's just a very poor system for dealing with such things.

 

Also at least the US Apple vs Samsung lawsuit didn't involve this patent.

http://www.andrewskurth.com/pressroom-publications-802.html

http://kppb.com/kppb/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&catid=3&Itemid=29

 

Your always welcome to bring your own citations into the discussion, particularly if they disagree with what I've written. Promise I won''t toss a troll tag at you for challenging me.

 

You're also appear to be confused with the stats. They don't show that 90% of all issued patents have validity issues. The numbers are for challenged and re-examined patents for which evidence of invalidity has to be submitted before the reexamination is even granted. If there's no apparent evidence of problematic patent claims there's no re-exam by the USPTO. Understand now?

Edited by Gatorguy - 12/7/12 at 5:22pm

This is the first time I've commented on an AppleInsider story, so here goes.  I'm totally surprised that no one has come up with this particular angle on the multi-touch patent before.  I'm also not surprised that some one or some company has anonymously submitted this "challenge" to the USPTO considering how much money is involved.  Now, does anyone remember the Microsoft Table Top Computer?  It is/was completely dependent on "multi-touch" although designed with multiple hands/fingers in it's operation.  It was developed in "2007" prior to the patent application for multi-touch by Apple Inc. and Steve Jobs (and others) in 2008.  I'm not a MS lover either (I actually used to hate the company for stealing Apple's ideas back in the day to develop Windows), but it would seem to me that they came up with the original idea for multi-touch and actually developed a prototype product for it's use.  The mechanics were different, as the Table Top Computer used multiple cameras in it's operation rather than a touchscreen surface, but the concept seems to me to be similar enough.  Now the next question is where did MS get their idea for this concept?  Was it from that same company that Apple purchased for the technology, the one mentioned in a prior post?  Time will tell us the answers but in the meantime I hope Apple, Inc. gets that Samsung payment they nonetheless deserve for Samsung's blatant copying of the original iPhone 3GS look and feel...

Pathetic is US Patent and its principles. Check European. Those who lived and studied in Europe laugh of US Patent principles. I actually could smartly sneak pen and mouse definition and get USPTO patent. In Europe, engineering students (Masters) are required to take classes in patenting so no "smart-boy" lawyer could do some idiotic claims.

Guess what my friend who is from European university was writing technical reviews for such patent firm that protected large corporations in the USA. Now I hear they have firm that really works on helping people with real innovations here in the USA and not some idiotic patents used for corporate wars. I hear that competitor of Apple visits that place from to time

Although stating heuristics for base of command sounds innovative in fact it is not. It is the way we all function every day prior to Apple's "discovery". You cannot patent common science or laws of nature. Still not understandable? Go get education overseas. You may even learn how GSM networks was born that has a lot with US patenting system.

(Euro living in this mess)

 

The original Surface was in no way, shape, or form the "original idea for multitouch". Particularly since it didn't exist until after the introduction of the iPhone.

Apple has dozens of newly granted Multi-touch patents. This won't hurt them.

With now over 1200 granted patents for 2012 [a good 30 or more for multi-touch and none from purchased corporations]; and today's submission of 87 more patents filed http://www.latestpatents.com/apple-patent-applications-published-on-06-december-2012/#more-20136

it's quite clear Apple has accounted for these potential actions.

Dig through the extensive reporting at PatentlyApple.com and you'll notice Apple is skating to where the puck will be and owning the touch patent wars.
Edited by mdriftmeyer - 12/7/12 at 5:38pm

As do others (Google has been granted several as an example). At some point all the big players are going to have to settle as they all have pieces of the puzzle in their inventory.

 

Assuming we accept the premise of your argument, we can just as easily conclude that an invalidation by the patent office means nothing as well.

 

So much for your "argument".

As I mentioned, Apple isn't the only one working multi-touch. A quick search here found 126 Google multi-touch related patents filed and/or granted, most of them in the past three years. Purchased or transferred patents from others aren't included in the results. I suspect doing the same search using Motorola, Samsung or Microsoft as the assignee might show similar results.

 

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=multi-touch+OR+multitouch+inassignee:Google&num=10#q=multi-touch+OR+multitouch+inassignee:Google&hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=pts&psj=1&ei=0KHCUJ3gFoSK8QTviIAo&start=60&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1354675689,d.eWU&fp=cb629d3c6571b600&bpcl=39650382&biw=1280&bih=685

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 1/28/13 at 8:36pm

 

I'm speaking strictly patents granted. Apple has hundreds of multi-touch patents filed and granted.

 

2012 Total Patents filed: 809

2012 Total Patents granted: 1209

 

Since 2007 a good 4-5k granted patents to Apple and unlike IBM who dwarfs everyone filing patents, Apple has a high patent to product ratio, if not near the top in the industry.

 

Then you add the additional 6-8k more patents Apple has acquired of actual value [unlike the mountain of nothing from Moto Mobility] and it's quite clear with Schmidt trying to smooth and downplay the relationship being on rought times that he has been told Google better kiss and make up or get ready to be slammed by the approach of decimating your OEMs. Death by a thousand cuts is already happening and the latest patents granted to Apple most certainly won't be redacted as the industry has never seen these, in any form.

Edited by mdriftmeyer - 12/7/12 at 6:51pm

To be fair the study Mark Lemley referenced, and the statistic cited in the link you provided, involved the most asserted software patents, used for litigation at least 8 times or more. Those types of patent suits are often brought by NPE's (patent trolls) who have an inherently lower overall success rate anyway, than practicing entities. So It's certainly possible the quality of the litigants could bear some of the blame rather than the sole fact the cases involved software. 

I know they do. That doesn't mean they can't be accused of infringing on someone else's multi-touch IP at some time. I sure you'd agree Apple doesn't have a lock on it. Distinctly possible they'll find themselves needing a license to someone else's multi-touch patent at some point. With any luck that IP holder will be a willing licensee.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/google-cranks-up-its-patent-engine/

 

To repeat, eventually all the big players will have to admit they need something another one has. Settlements will come, just as Apple did with HTC. IMHO all the saber-rattling is mostly jockeying for position.

This is not a final judgement so the doom and gloom is a tad premature.

That said, IF this is some vague 'idea' patent then it probably should be invalid. Just like the 'swipe to unlock' was and Apple was granted a more specific single implementation patent.

And what about other related patents. Apple might 'lose' this one but have other patents that cover the same areas and ultimately be fine.

Finally... someone has posted something that's based on reality instead of emotion.  Bravo.

 

It looks like Samsung's European smiley patent is about to be invalidated.

 

Please explain how this European software based patent fits in with your rant:-

 

It's called "Emoticon input method for mobile terminal", it was filed by Samsung and published in 2002, when Samsung apparently invented this :)

 

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/maximizedOriginalDocument?flavour=maximizedPlainPage&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20080924&CC=EP&NR=1215867B1&KC=B1

These patent invalidations won't affect the current case finalizing before judge Koh, unless they are final invalidations. I forget the status '381 patent but the '949 won't be totally invalidated or validated until after Koh makes her final decisions. So it seems that this won't have an effect until the appeal.

It will be interesting to see if Apple and Samsung settle before an appeal, or if they appeal this and keep the second AppleVSSamsung 2013 trial on track.

Judge Koh seems sick of these companies using the courts to settle their business disputes when her same court presides over arguably more important cases.

GG, always enjoy your input.

I'm new here but this is worth a watch 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcKqyn-gUbY

 

This is the work presented by Jeff Han at the TED talks in Feb 2006. This is a full 2 years before this patent was submitted. There was a lot of work done in multi-touch and Jeff makes reference to them. This clearly show prior art. It is being presented here to a public forum and there were white papers published and Kiosks demonstrating these devises gestures at tech conferences and in lobbies of high tech firms . It shows pinch to zoom, panning, scaling and rotation. Obviously this is not a demonstration of a mobile device nor is it the same type of touch screen display. However the patents in question also don't stipulate what type of touch interface either. Many gestures that Apple has "patented" had been in the public space prior to the patent filings.

 

I do believe Apple has brought and continues to bring an incredible amount of innovation to the market, but have I expected these patents to fall eventually. 

How do you know there is nothing like it? First of all, proving a negative is hard. Second, there most assuredly was something "like" it at the time, because Apple did not invent multitouch. But claim 1 of patent '949 is so general and vague that Apple might argue that what it covers is similar to but does not overlap with prior art.

Edited by ankleskater - 12/7/12 at 10:08pm

Some kind of a deal or agreement exists between Jeff Han and Apple. But, to complicate this situation, Han sold his company to Microsoft earlier this year.

 

Notwithstanding this, Apple needs to distinguish their '949 patent from prior art such as Han's multitouch research.

If Apple never invented an ipad or iphone, I am sure that my iMac would still be as good as it is. Bottom line, while I'd like to see Apple protected against their ideas and implementation being ripped off by the craptastic items produced by samuel sung, it still will not stop Apple being a profitable company and making game changing quality products. I think Apple are in good hands.

And is it just a coincidence that Eric Schmitt is being tapped for a cabinet post? Google is making headway with their government grafts....

In response to the guy that thinks Google is influencing the patent office.....

This is absolutely not true.  The patent office is not influenced by Google.  The only difference between examination of a sensitive patent for Apple is that some (not all) examiners will be more cautious because they don't want to allow something that will get overturned in court.  When this happens the examiner will reject, reject, reject and the Applicant has to appeal to the board of appeals who will then overturn the examiner and allow the case. (assuming the claim is allowable)

Edited by ash471 - 12/8/12 at 4:29am

I find it humorous to read postings by people (including AI) about IP matters.  For the most part you guys get it all wrong. I guess that is why us patent lawyers can charge $300-$500/hr.

 

First off, this patent has not been invalidated. It has not even been "preliminarily invalidated".  The patent is under reexamination.  Apple has received an action on the merits.  Talk to any patent attorney with significant prosecution experience and they will tell you that 90% of the time they get a first action where all the claims are rejected.  This is totally expected and it means nothing in terms of whether claims will eventually be allowed.  

 

Secondly, the patent office doesn't invalidate patents.  They reject or allow patent claims.  The only place to invalidate a patent is a court of law.

 

I haven't read the claims or the prior art that provoked the re-exam, but if this is a typical re-exam, the claims were probably issued too broadly given the newly discovered prior art.  Apple will narrow the claims to overcome the prior art and the patent will reissue. 

 

The most ridiculous comments in this thread are the ones where you all opine about whether the patent office is broken or the patent office screwed up.  Unless you read and analyze the claims in light of the prior art you have no idea whether the patent is allowable. A PATENT IS NOT DEFINED BY ITS DISCLOSURE.....A PATENT IS DEFINED BY ITS CLAIMS. 

Edited by ash471 - 12/8/12 at 4:25am

One more thing.... the patent office does a pretty good job of searching the prior art.  Examiners have like 10-15 hours to review the prior art, the patent application, and write up a rejection.  You can't expect them to find every piece of prior art known to mankind.  Besides, even if they looked for 100 hours, they might not find everything.  We do not want the government spending 50 billion a year trying to find a needle in a haystack.  If they miss something, the patent can be re-examed.  What's wrong with that?  A re-exam is not much different than the original prosecution.  

 

The system isn't broken, its efficient.  However, we would definitely have a broken system if we implemented policies based on the opinions expressed in this thread.

Edited by ash471 - 12/8/12 at 4:28am

I was going to write the exact same thing.

Adding to the bolded statement above, the negative side from a PR standpoint has been more damaging to Apple worldwide than anything else.*

Imagine for a minute if Apple would have just let the whole thing fly, meaning no lawsuits. Even going further, to just basically shrug their shoulders at the whole "copy & clone" market. The attitude that Apple doesn't care because they are absolutely 100% only concerned with innovating and making "the absolute best products and UX money can buy"... living up to their motto so to speak... would have IMHO been worth far more than the twisted media and headline hunters have made out Apple to be.

People around the world are ALWAYS going to want cheap knock-offs... of ANY product. While it does get out of hand and is infuriating I'm sure for the designers and companies making those products, by and large they hold their heads (their public image) high, knowing... and the world knowing as well... that THEY are the trend-setters, the innovators, the companies and initial products that move the world forward.

Apple: hold your head high; shrug off the imitators; continue to lead the tech-world. It's a far different connected world today than the first time around with Microsoft. We know. The world knows. No need to shove it in their face with continuous lawsuits... and in this case, an entire government against you and your engineers.

Hell. If I'm Apple and TC... I don't even comment on it. Why give the press any more fodder to twist around and shoot ya with?!

* Apple has made my life far more difficult in many ways as a consultant, just because I have to get through the twisted media stories before I can get to integrating a customer with their devices. Recent stories here have put Apple at the center of Foxcon mother's babies dying at an alarming rate due to them working too many hours. Yes. Infant mortality in 1-child-China is NOW also Apple's... and ONLY Apple's fault.

The main problem with these patents is that they patent the result rather than the method. A general patent on heuristics to recognize commands passed through a touch-screen essentially prevents everyone else from implementing touch-screens, because all touch-screen implementations are based on heuristics (you need to make a best guess f what the user wants to do from a sea of input ambiguity).