or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › USPTO rejects claims of Apple patent asserted against Samsung in California trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USPTO rejects claims of Apple patent asserted against Samsung in California trial

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
The USPTO on Tuesday rejected multiple claims of Apple's '172 patent for autocompletion of text input, which the company successfully asserted in its second California court action against Samsung.


Source: USPTO


In a court filing on Thursday, Samsung informed District Court Judge Lucy Koh of the recent U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision to reject claims of Apple's U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 for predictive text input, which was asserted against the Korean tech giant in the two companies' most recent California dispute.

Specifically, the USPTO Office Action, brought about by an ex parte reexamination request, concluded that two patents anticipated Claim 18 of Apple's '172 property, prompting the body to reject it citing prior art. The decision could deal a blow to Apple's $119.6 million win as Judge Koh found Samsung to have infringed on the autocomplete patent in a summary judgment handed down before the trial began.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, who spotted Samsung's filing earlier today, noted an infringement ruling on an invalid patent is meaningless and could decrease damages owed to Apple. In addition, Judge Koh may agree with an outstanding post-trial motion from Samsung that seeks to hold Claim 18 invalid.

The Office Action is not final and Apple still has a number of appeal routes to explore before the patent is officially deemed invalid. The USPTO previously invalidated Apple patents for iOS "pinch-to-zoom" and "rubber-banding" assets.

While Apple and Samsung continue to wage patent war in the U.S., both companies recently agreed to settle all international litigation.

post #2 of 55

So... successfully asserted already. Meaning they’re valid.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #3 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So... successfully asserted already. Meaning they’re valid.
Still doesn't look good that these patents are being invalidated by the patent office.
post #4 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Still doesn't look good that these patents are being invalidated by the patent office.
They likely got invalidated due to an "anonymous" claim being filed to have them thrown out. Wouldn't surprise me a single bit if the anonymous party was someone with ties to Scamsung.

Apple will just appeal and have the decision reversed and the patent will stand, just watch.

The USPTO usually attempts to dismiss patents as soon as an anonymous claim is filed, forcing the patent holder to begin, in some cases multiple, appeals.

Just goes to show how broken the patent system is.
post #5 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagMan1979 View Post

They likely got invalidated due to an "anonymous" claim being filed to have them thrown out. Wouldn't surprise me a single bit if the anonymous party was someone with ties to Scamsung.

Apple will just appeal and have the decision reversed and the patent will stand, just watch.

The USPTO usually attempts to dismiss patents as soon as an anonymous claim is filed, forcing the patent holder to begin, in some cases multiple, appeals.

Just goes to show how broken the patent system is.

Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.
post #6 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So... successfully asserted already. Meaning they’re valid.
Uhm no.
post #7 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.

Thanks for the pointless FOSS argument where corporations invest heavily and FOSS says, ``thanks for the freebies.''

Innovation is both a physical and abstract reality.
post #8 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.

 

No, that would not be the best thing.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

So... successfully asserted already. Meaning they’re valid.

 

Apple successfully asserted that Samsung used predictive text.  

 

  If Apple held the patent on that, it would be worth money.  Since it was thought at the time they did, it was calculated into the $119mil amount.  Now that it turns out Apple doesn't hold a patent on that, the amount will be reduced.

 

Until Apple appeals and owns predictive text patent again.

 

Then they can go to court again to determine if the original amount was right.  Until it turns out they don't own the patent after all....

 

Either way, it is asserted that Samsung used predictive text.

post #10 of 55
So judge Koh claims that Samsung's patent of pushing a tv signal over a phone wire for video conferencing in the mid 1900's against FaceTime is valid. Yet this modern technique in a modern device that is relevant today, somehow gets questioned and disqualified.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Still doesn't look good that these patents are being invalidated by the patent office.

 

They're not invalidated. The patents were granted and remain valid until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. This could take years. Apple will now make a submission to the USPTO which they will review and this can go back and forth several times.

post #12 of 55
As stated earlier either Samsung has instigated this reversal or maybe payed someone to cast doubt on the validity of Apple's application of this technology.
KennDDS
Reply
KennDDS
Reply
post #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.

 

I must say, Rogifan, it has been interesting over the past six or so months seeing your metamorphosis from Apple enthusiast to almost gloomy naysayer.

 

I must say that I am most curious as to what is responsible for creating such a change.

Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I must say, Rogifan, it has been interesting over the past six or so months seeing your metamorphosis from Apple enthusiast to almost gloomy naysayer.

I must say that I am most curious as to what is responsible for creating such a change.
I've never been much of a supporter of these lawsuits. In fact one of the original iPhone UI designers (Bas Ording) left Apple in part, because he said too much of his time was being taken up by lawsuits.

Not sure what Apple really won in the end. Sure we can say a jury charged Samsung with copying but so what? It wasn't about money. Google is as committed to Android as ever. And while Samsung might be struggling now it's not because of these lawsuits. So what was gained actually?
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I must say, Rogifan, it has been interesting over the past six or so months seeing your metamorphosis from Apple enthusiast to almost gloomy naysayer.

I must say that I am most curious as to what is responsible for creating such a change.
Oh and one other thing I forgot to mention: all the stuff that leaked from the trials - from design prototypes, to emails about advertising and Steve's top 100 meeting...was it really worth it to have all that stuff leak? Especially for a company that prides itself on secrecy?
post #16 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I've never been much of a supporter of these lawsuits. In fact one of the original iPhone UI designers (Bas Ording) left Apple in part, because he said too much of his time was being taken up by lawsuits.

Not sure what Apple really won in the end. Sure we can say a jury charged Samsung with copying but so what? It wasn't about money. Google is as committed to Android as ever. And while Samsung might be struggling now it's not because of these lawsuits. So what was gained actually?

I can understand your lack of enthusiasm regarding any legal action that Apple has been forced to take.

However, advocating that companies or individuals, that have invested considerable time, money, and resources into creating products, ignore when those products are 'slavishly' imitated is just not acceptable.
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Oh and one other thing I forgot to mention: all the stuff that leaked from the trials - from design prototypes, to emails about advertising and Steve's top 100 meeting...was it really worth it to have all that stuff leak? Especially for a company that prides itself on secrecy?

I believe, in the long term, it has probably done very little damage.

Time will tell.
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #18 of 55
Actually it may not have been successful at winning rewards. But it did force Samsung to depend on there own designs. They based there galaxy phone from a smooth stone; and it sank just as fast as one.
post #19 of 55
Got to be proud of out legal system.. Arent u now ! .????

Unreal...... System designed to work for lawyers by lawyers.. Nothing more !
post #20 of 55
I might be half asleep here but a patent is a patent and they used Apple's patents.
post #21 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

you're sounding like a fandroid.

oh yeah screw all software patents and watch scamsung introduce their new laptop with OS X Yosammity and iOS 8 for mobile devices.

While I'll be off developing Angry Birds Disneyland.
post #22 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeiP5 View Post

I might be half asleep here but a patent is a patent and they used Apple's patents.

 

It may take some time before this is fully resolved. In the end if the patent itself doesn't hold up, Samsung (and others that might have otherwise infringed upon it had it been valid) won't owe anything. This is true regardless of the patent having been initially granted.

post #23 of 55

And when this patent finally does get thrown out, as it should, Apple and Samsung should both sue the patent office for expenses trying to enforce / defend against a patent that should not have been granted in the first place. 

 

Predictive text / auto complete has been around for 40 years.

post #24 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by KennMSr View Post

As stated earlier either Samsung has instigated this reversal or maybe payed someone to cast doubt on the validity of Apple's application of this technology.


I don't see how it is relevant at all which party instigated the challenge to the validity of a patent. It is surely only relevant if the patent is valid or not. It would be manifestly unjust to collect "damages" for a patent that is not valid in the first place ... which means that not a cent should be paid by the "infringing" party until all legal instances have been pursued and final judgements or validation/invalidation determined.

 

Anything else would be an abuse of the legal system.

post #25 of 55

1. *IF* the patent is invalidated on the basis of prior art, will that leave Apple vulnerable to litigation from a prior artist?

 

2. How the hell does the Patent Office decide to GRANT a bloody patent in the first place? Why are these investigations always conducted AFTER the patent is granted? Don't they cross-reference before issuing a new patent? If I filed for and received a patent, and invested millions of dollars based on the assumption that I'm protected, I'd be seriously dogdam PISSED if the Patent Office came along a few years later and announced that they've changed their minds! WTF is the point of patent protection if the issuing body isn't competent to keep track of who invented what?

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #26 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

1. *IF* the patent is invalidated on the basis of prior art, will that leave Apple vulnerable to litigation from a prior artist?

 

2. How the hell does the Patent Office decide to GRANT a bloody patent in the first place? Why are these investigations always conducted AFTER the patent is granted? Don't they cross-reference before issuing a new patent? If I filed for and received a patent, and invested millions of dollars based on the assumption that I'm protected, I'd be seriously dogdam PISSED if the Patent Office came along a few years later and announced that they've changed their minds! WTF is the point of patent protection if the issuing body isn't competent to keep track of who invented what?


Many people take the view that software (all software is mathematics, is abstract and arguably not patentable at all) shouldn't be patented because you can't patent ideas. The USPTO and others have taken the view that they can stretch the concept and the law in order to allow things to be patented that are fundamenally excluded. The problem is that it is almost impossible (especially, but not only) to really check beforehand if an "invention" is really new or not. Even real experts have problems to achieve this. The USPTO simply doesn't have the resources to check properly before issuing a patent, so they take the simple way out and basically say "let the courts sort it out". But the courts generally can't .. no more than anyone else. So its a cop-out.

 

The other side of the coin is that patent lawyers are experts in obfuscation .. it is often completely impossible to determine on an objective basis what a claim REALLY MEANS. .. this is intentional. Many patent trolls .. including Apple .. count on the fact that a party accused of "infringement" may agree to pay "damages" without going to court as long as it is economically cheaper to do so than to fight through all instances.

 

Its a mess, but that's the US view of the world. "Making a buck" is all that counts.

post #27 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerard View Post

Actually it may not have been successful at winning rewards. But it did force Samsung to depend on there own designs. They based there galaxy phone from a smooth stone; and it sank just as fast as one.
Galaxy isn't sinking because of these lawsuits. It's sinking because Samsung has no brand loyalty, nothing "sticky" to keep customers and is losing share in China to companies like Xiaomi.
post #28 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by cali View Post

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

you're sounding like a fandroid.

oh yeah screw all software patents and watch scamsung introduce their new laptop with OS X Yosammity and iOS 8 for mobile devices.

While I'll be off developing Angry Birds Disneyland.

Hey I said software patents, not all patents. Amazon getting a patent for one-click is ridiculous. Some would argue the same about slide to unlock since sliding something to unlock a door has existed since forever. Let software be protected by copywrite.
post #29 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

It may take some time before this is fully resolved. In the end if the patent itself doesn't hold up, Samsung (and others that might have otherwise infringed upon it had it been valid) won't owe anything. This is true regardless of the patent having been initially granted.

While that would seem both fair and logical it's not how it works. Damages and/or royalties paid on a patent claim that's later found invalid won't get refunded.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cali View Post

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

you're sounding like a fandroid.

oh yeah screw all software patents and watch scamsung introduce their new laptop with OS X Yosammity and iOS 8 for mobile devices.

While I'll be off developing Angry Birds Disneyland.

Hey I said software patents, not all patents. Amazon getting a patent for one-click is ridiculous. Some would argue the same about slide to unlock since sliding something to unlock a door has existed since forever. Let software be protected by copywrite.


Hey Rogifan .. the idea to place software under copyright protection is about the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. There is NO checking by Copyright appliations of originality, or of suitability for copyright, and the Copyright is valid for 70 years.

 

A really stupid idea ! Much worse than the current mess with Patents.

post #31 of 55

Bottom line is this:  If Apple wants to win the US court they need to increase their lobbing in Washington DC.  PERIOD. 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/05/09/google-workers-top-microsoft-facebook-peers-in.html?page=all

 

Google workers top Microsoft, Facebook peers in political donations

post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Best thing would probably be to do away with software patents all together.

 

So you would be okay if Samsung stole the TouchID software that Apple spent BILLIONS to develop?

post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

So you would be okay if Samsung stole the TouchID software that Apple spent BILLIONS to develop?
How exactly does Samsung steal it? They have no access to the AuthenTec technology do they? Or Apple's A7 chip design. Touch ID is about a lot more than just software code. And I'm not sure where you're getting the BILLIONS figure from. Apple acquired AuthenTec for $356 million. How do you go from that to billions?
post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Bottom line is this:  If Apple wants to win the US court they need to increase their lobbing in Washington DC.  PERIOD. 

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/05/09/google-workers-top-microsoft-facebook-peers-in.html?page=all

Google workers top Microsoft, Facebook peers in political donations


The day Apple starts doing that, the day they cease being Apple. I don't want Apple to be like every other corporation that spends billions buying influence in Washington DC. I want Apple to win in court for the right reasons not because they're spending billions lobbying politicians and government agencies.
post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

So you would be okay if Samsung stole the TouchID software that Apple spent BILLIONS to develop?

Apple did not spend billions on TouchID.  Talk about hyperbole.

post #36 of 55

The whole problem here to me is that the USPTO grants patents, then invalidates them later after challenges. We need a better patent system that gets it right the first time. But since this is a government beauracracy that obviously can never happen, not in a million years.

post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


Hey Rogifan .. the idea to place software under copyright protection is about the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. There is NO checking by Copyright appliations of originality, or of suitability for copyright, and the Copyright is valid for 70 years.

A really stupid idea ! Much worse than the current mess with Patents.


What? Software us already protected by copyright.
post #38 of 55
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

If Apple held the patent on that, it would be worth money.  Since it was thought at the time they did, it was calculated into the $119mil amount.  Now that it turns out Apple doesn't hold a patent on that, the amount will be reduced.

 

But at the time, they WERE thought to have done it. Therefore they get the money.

 

Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
Hey I said software patents, not all patents. Amazon getting a patent for one-click is ridiculous.

 

Correct. Amazon getting a patent for an implementation of one-click purchasing, however, is not.

 
Some would argue the same about slide to unlock since sliding something to unlock a door has existed since forever.

 

And they are completely insane, undermining the argument against overreaching software patents.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #39 of 55
For all the handwringing here, there really was prior art. Autocorrect existed prior to the iPhone, for example in Microsoft Office, and likely in PDAs or other smartphones as well. Apple was not entitled to claim a patent on a pre-existing technology.
post #40 of 55
Originally Posted by Fuzzypaws View Post
For all the handwringing here, there really was prior art. Autocorrect existed prior to the iPhone, for example in Microsoft Office, and likely in PDAs or other smartphones as well. Apple was not entitled to claim a patent on a pre-existing technology.


So you have proof that Apple’s autocorrect was implemented in the same way as Microsoft’s?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › USPTO rejects claims of Apple patent asserted against Samsung in California trial