or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Increase in Apple patent invalidations stems from 2011 law
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Increase in Apple patent invalidations stems from 2011 law

post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 
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."
post #2 of 58
Government idiocy and money?! Imagine that...

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #3 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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.

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

The pinch to zoom patent was not invalidated.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #4 of 58
How many Apple patents have actually been invalidated?
post #5 of 58

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

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #6 of 58

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.  

post #7 of 58
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.)

post #8 of 58
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

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.
post #9 of 58
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.

post #10 of 58
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.
post #11 of 58
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


Edited by Rayz - 12/20/12 at 7:49am
post #12 of 58
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.
post #13 of 58
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.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #14 of 58
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?

post #15 of 58
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.

post #16 of 58
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post
…the U.S. Constitution:

 

There's your problem: listening to that. 1wink.gif

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #17 of 58
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......

post #18 of 58
Why are there incomplete sentences in that "article"... ?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #19 of 58
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.

post #20 of 58

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 10:06am
post #21 of 58
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post
Why are there incomplete sentences in that "article"... ?

 

HTML formatting error (a ' instead of a "), which magically hid the rest of the paragraph.

 

Should be fixed now.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 12/20/12 at 8:54am

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #22 of 58
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

What are the counts of Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives?
post #23 of 58

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 10:06am
post #24 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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.

 

Huh? Did I miss a news report?

post #25 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post


What are the counts of Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives?

What are the counts of the law-making parts of government controlled by the Democrats?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Huh? Did I miss a news report?

 

Yes, apparently, I did. 

post #27 of 58
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.

That this the purpose of the law to allow people to go back in time to challenge an already issued patent which should have never been granted in the first time, but read below, it reality it just another way for the government to make more money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Government idiocy and money?! Imagine that...

Oh looks like the government found another way to make money, it cost money to file a patent and the associated work, and not if someone want to challenge the patent since the government did not do their work in the first place you have to pay again. Another prime example of government making money for the their own mistakes. Interesting how that works.

post #28 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What are the counts of the law-making parts of government controlled by the Democrats?

 

I think you either a) missed the point, or b) don't understand how our government works. Or, maybe you were trying to spin it?

post #29 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Patents have been found invalid with some frequency.....

What the heck does that mean?

 

At the moment, it just sounds like an empty-headed statement....

post #30 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What the heck does that mean?

 

At the moment, it just sounds like an empty-headed statement....

 

It means he ended up looking like a fool with his previous claim that 80% of software patents were invalidated, so now he's scaled it back to the point where he can't be wrong.

post #31 of 58

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 10:06am
post #32 of 58

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 10:06am
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

 

According to the USPTO, no more than 23% of patents remain intact as originally filed, with  the same percentage completely invalidated after commissioner review (see Section 10):

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/EP_quarterly_report_June_30_2012.pdf

 

When looking at the subset of software patents frequently asserted in court, according to an analysis by Stanford law professors Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro as much as 90% of such cases lose, often through invalidation or other means which also render them ineffectual:

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/patents.pdf

 

That's a lengthy paper - the summary included here may be helpful:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Oracle-Google-case-shows-patent-system-flaws-3507618.php

 

So, now you are posting the same nonsense, but changed your text into weasel words that don't really say anything more than your original comment in this thread?

 

"... may be helpful." lol.gif

post #34 of 58

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 10:06am
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Is it the USPTO or the Stanford law professors you find less credible than your unsupported opinions?

 

"Apple 'pinch-to-zoom' patent invalidated by USPTO" post #55

post #36 of 58

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 3/15/13 at 10:06am
post #37 of 58
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 fairness, if you take the time to click on the words "was passed" (in blue color) ... following the term ...(The Leahy-Smith Act was passed by) it takes you to a link that answers all your questions, at least it did for me.

Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #38 of 58

Apple's lawyers need to invent some sort of patent application process that sticks. And make sure they patent it.

post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


Yes, that's the post where you failed to provide any citations for your claims.  Did you mistakenly believe you had included a link there, or perhaps meant to link to some other post I might have missed?

 

Back on topic, in this thread you wrote, "So, now you are posting the same nonsense", so the question remains:

 

Is it the USPTO or the Stanford law professors you find less credible than your unsupported opinions?

 

Uhm, that wasn't my post, so, apparently, you make it quite a habit to post stuff where you have no idea what you are talking about.

post #40 of 58
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post
Apple's lawyers need to invent some sort of patent application process that sticks. And make sure they patent it.

 

Invalidated for prior art. lol.gif

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Increase in Apple patent invalidations stems from 2011 law