Increase in Apple patent invalidations stems from 2011 law
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.
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."
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."
Comments
As usual, AI can't bother to check the facts.
The pinch to zoom patent was not invalidated.
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
How many Apple patents have actually been invalidated?
So far? None, I think.
But a whole bucket load are under review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Originally Posted by anonymouse
…the U.S. Constitution:
There's your problem: listening to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
How many Apple patents have actually been invalidated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
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......
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
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.
deleted