Steve Jobs' original iPhone keynote video used to invalidate Apple patent in Germany
In an ironic twist to Apple's ongoing worldwide legal battles, a German patent court on Thursday invalidated an Apple property asserted against Google and Samsung because a video of Steve Jobs presenting the feature onstage predates the filing, and is thus considered prior art in the country.
Late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs presenting the original iPhone in 2007.
According to court reports from FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the Bundespatentgericht, or Federal Patent Court of Germany, declared Apple's EP2059868 patent for a "Portable electronic device for photo management," covering a specific utilization of Apple's "bounce-back" user interface effect, invalid due to prior art.
That prior art came from Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, who demonstrated the technology described in the patent during a 2007 keynote where the first generation iPhone was officially unveiled.
At the time of the presentation, U.S. patent law allowed inventors a 12-month grace period in which to file a patent document after coming up with a novel idea. During this time period, nothing publicly shown or published could be considered prior art. This mechanism does not exist in Europe, meaning the January 2007 video is considered a pre-filing disclosure and therefore technically prior art when weighed against Apple's late June patent priority date.
In April, Google's counsel submitted the clip that shows Jobs demonstrating the iPhone's photo management feature. Apple attempted to enter amendments to show the European patent was colorably different from the tech being shown off onstage, but the court rejected the claims. Apple can appeal the decision if it so chooses.
Mueller said that a member of Presiding Judge Vivian Sredl's panel opened Thursday's proceedings by outlining the court's inclination to invalidate the narrowed bounce-back patent based on two cases of prior art. One is a content display property that belongs to AOL/Luigi Lira called "Lira," while the other is a Microsoft-sponsored study called "LaunchTile."
Although Apple's patent was invalidated, the company's counsel successfully argued novelty in light of both "Lira" and "LaunchTile," a win that Mueller said is significant in the grand scheme of the company's worldwide patent row due to an awarded German utility model covering the same photo bounce-back invention. Unlike European patents, German utility models do have a grace period of six months, meaning the Jobs video plays no role in its validity.
This property was also asserted against Samsung in a different case previously stayed by the Mannheim Regional Court. In response to that particular claim, the South Korean company initiated revocation proceedings with the German Patent Office, but the body has yet to rule on the challenge.
Apple could use Thursday's outcome, specifically the finding that "Lira" and "LaunchTile" don't invalidate the European photo bounce-back patent, to its advantage in the utility model proceedings. The company can ultimately request the Mannheim court to restart the claim against Samsung and even possibly use that property against other companies until it expires in 2017.
Late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs presenting the original iPhone in 2007.
According to court reports from FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the Bundespatentgericht, or Federal Patent Court of Germany, declared Apple's EP2059868 patent for a "Portable electronic device for photo management," covering a specific utilization of Apple's "bounce-back" user interface effect, invalid due to prior art.
That prior art came from Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, who demonstrated the technology described in the patent during a 2007 keynote where the first generation iPhone was officially unveiled.
At the time of the presentation, U.S. patent law allowed inventors a 12-month grace period in which to file a patent document after coming up with a novel idea. During this time period, nothing publicly shown or published could be considered prior art. This mechanism does not exist in Europe, meaning the January 2007 video is considered a pre-filing disclosure and therefore technically prior art when weighed against Apple's late June patent priority date.
In April, Google's counsel submitted the clip that shows Jobs demonstrating the iPhone's photo management feature. Apple attempted to enter amendments to show the European patent was colorably different from the tech being shown off onstage, but the court rejected the claims. Apple can appeal the decision if it so chooses.
Mueller said that a member of Presiding Judge Vivian Sredl's panel opened Thursday's proceedings by outlining the court's inclination to invalidate the narrowed bounce-back patent based on two cases of prior art. One is a content display property that belongs to AOL/Luigi Lira called "Lira," while the other is a Microsoft-sponsored study called "LaunchTile."
Although Apple's patent was invalidated, the company's counsel successfully argued novelty in light of both "Lira" and "LaunchTile," a win that Mueller said is significant in the grand scheme of the company's worldwide patent row due to an awarded German utility model covering the same photo bounce-back invention. Unlike European patents, German utility models do have a grace period of six months, meaning the Jobs video plays no role in its validity.
This property was also asserted against Samsung in a different case previously stayed by the Mannheim Regional Court. In response to that particular claim, the South Korean company initiated revocation proceedings with the German Patent Office, but the body has yet to rule on the challenge.
Apple could use Thursday's outcome, specifically the finding that "Lira" and "LaunchTile" don't invalidate the European photo bounce-back patent, to its advantage in the utility model proceedings. The company can ultimately request the Mannheim court to restart the claim against Samsung and even possibly use that property against other companies until it expires in 2017.
Comments
Psychotic nonsense.
The boss of the company that owns the patent demoing what they say is the same patent invalidates the patent because it shows that someone else had already thought of it???
I must be missing something here...
You are. He showed it before the patent was filed.
...GO!!
This is outrageous. Demo your own invention, then patent it and have it invalidated because you demoed it prior to patenting it.
Unbelievable, Steve was Apple' CEO at the time, it was an on an Apple iPhone. How can it be prior art? The iPhone was still being finalised for release, so the video would either be of one of the final prototypes, or 1 of the first off the production line. How can a companies video of a yet to be released product, be prior art against same company for the same product / software?
This is as ridiculous as using a dummy film or tv prop, of something that does not exist yet in the style / form factor, as prior art.
Now that all makes sense doesn't it!
The boss of the company that owns the patent demoing what they say is the same patent invalidates the patent because it shows that someone else had already thought of it???
I must be missing something here...
In Germany you need to patent it before you disclose it to the public.
In the US at the time, you had 12 months from public disclosure to apply for the patent. Wait longer than that in the US and you can't patent it.
Here's one way to think about it: Does it seem fair for a company to show you some cool ideas and then, retro-actively, go back and tell you that some of them are patented and need to be licensed? I don't think that's very fair.
Attention outraged Apple fans! Your enemy for today is: Germany / The Germans.
...GO!!
This is 1 more reason I think IP laws etc should be controlled by 1 court / organisation worldwide, & not by individual countries.
Here's one way to think about it: Does it seem fair for a company to show you some cool ideas and then, retro-actively, go back and tell you that some of them are patented and need to be licensed? I don't think that's very fair.
It doesn't matter because first you don't necessarily have to disclose patents when they show it. In no country does somebody go and list off a bunch of patent numbers before demoing a feature. Second, you may not have patented the idea but a third party may have. You still need to conduct a patent search.
Despicable. The idea that following the rules in the U,S is not good enough for Europe is beyond contemptible.
My dear...
1. Nobody is perfect (or was - and this also includes Steve Jobs).
2. No rule nor law is perfect (ever was - and this also includes american laws).
So, please, don't go thinking that the local values of USA are supposed to be universal. They're not, period.
What the heck are you on about? Apple followed the rules for patent filing in the U.S. that were in place at the time. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it can be used to invalidate all manner of U.S. patents that followed those rules. Frankly, this is something that the U.S. government needs to get involved over.
You didn't read the article, did you? The German court invalidated an EU patent. Apple's US patent is not in trouble here.
He was being sarcastic. I hope.
Hope so too... But, unfortunately, i met pretty lots of people sure to be "objective" in their believes... 8/
Attention outraged Apple fans! Your enemy for today is: Germany / The Germans.
...GO!!
Attention whoring, little Fandroids! Your mission for today is to defend the indefensible and always side against Apple, no matter how wrong the other party is.
...GO!!
Funny for a tech company to screw up on patent filings though.