USPTO finds Apple iPhone design patent invalid in court fight against Samsung

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 113
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Misa View Post





    Samsung's reputation has always been in the toilet:

    1) Korean electronics (and cars) are deemed inferior to Japanese electronics and cars

    2) Samsung has notoriously unreliable hardware, that doesn't even work. One bad device made by one Samsung Division means that person tells all their friends not to buy that brand of ANYTHING.





    Go look at the list of who makes cell phones, and see if you recognize any more than two non-US/Japanese brands.



    The general quality of mobile phone hardware goes:

    Japanese -> American -> European -> Korean -> Taiwan -> China(PRC)



    Any other countries hardware rarely even makes it over here.

     

    Kia, e.g. appears to receive excellent reviews and the Japanese car makers are not prone to extensive recalls and issues.

    And while I avoid Samsung products in general, do you have a fact-based source to back up your statement? I can google and pinpoint to a specific Apple-issue, but that does n to prove anything.

    Regarding your "general quality of hardware": Again, do you have a source to back that up?

  • Reply 42 of 113
    grkm3grkm3 Posts: 30member
    misa wrote: »
    Samsung's reputation has always been in the toilet:
    1) Korean electronics (and cars) are deemed inferior to Japanese electronics and cars
    2) Samsung has notoriously unreliable hardware, that doesn't even work. One bad device made by one Samsung Division means that person tells all their friends not to buy that brand of ANYTHING.


    Go look at the list of who makes cell phones, and see if you recognize any more than two non-US/Japanese brands.

    The general quality of mobile phone hardware goes:
    Japanese -> American -> European -> Korean -> Taiwan -> China(PRC)

    Any other countries hardware rarely even makes it over here.

    Consumer reports ranked the gs5 at 79 and scored higher then the iPhone 6 in user reports.


    http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-Galaxy-S5-tops-Consumer-Reports-latest-smartphone-ratings_id64274
  • Reply 43 of 113
    I'm honestly confused by these reversals. Isn't USPTO the organization who granted the patents in the first place? And then the same organization later decides, "Oops... we made a mistake. You did NOT get a patent on that invention." But by that time, the applicant firm has spent millions of dollars bringing the product to market under what they think is patent protection.

    Isn't this like removing the safety net after a tightrope walker begins his stunt?

    I'm not being cynical here... I really want to understand this appeal process.
  • Reply 44 of 113
    mwhitecomwhiteco Posts: 112member

    Why spend the money to patent something if this is how it's going to keep going? Save the money Apple

  • Reply 45 of 113
    croprcropr Posts: 1,090member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slprescott View Post



    I'm honestly confused by these reversals. Isn't USPTO the organization who granted the patents in the first place? And then the same organization later decides, "Oops... we made a mistake. You did NOT get a patent on that invention." But by that time, the applicant firm has spent millions of dollars bringing the product to market under what they think is patent protection.



    Isn't this like removing the safety net after a tightrope walker begins his stunt?



    I'm not being cynical here... I really want to understand this appeal process.



    Agreed.  But remember that the patent office has much less resources than the technology vendors.  It is not uncommon that the applicant files the same invention 10 times with just minor tweaks, before it is approved.  And examining prior art is an endless task.  Most prior art are "discovered" on a trial or by the competition and not by the limited resources of the patent office.

     

    I would not have to much mercy with the applicant. All applicants but the patent trolls are using other patents, so there is a balance.  

  • Reply 46 of 113
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    grkm3 wrote: »
    They won't but lg had similar design patents and I don't care how big of an apple fan u can be but the f700 design was ripped off from Samsung making the final apple iPhone design.

    Because of the timing loop hole apple made it somehow got its final design patent(after they saw the f700)to backtrack before Samsung's patent.

    Everyone copies and apple has been known to patent troll and steal as much as they can while making others look bad.
    They have you so brain washed.Samsung patented the f700 before the iPhone patent but was thrown out because apple found a loop hole to predate a new patent after the Samsung was out to make it invalid.

    Apple straight up copied the f700 in the final iPhone 1 design.
    This post is idiotic. Stop saying "loophole" and explain what you mean or don't say anything. You are trolling and attempting to rewrite history. You are making up facts. Everything about your post is incorrect.

    Your claim that Apple has been known to "patent troll" is proof enough that you just don't have a clue. Look up the definition of a patent troll and then come back and make up more facts that somehow can excuse your ignorance.

    The only actual questions I have for you are: Did you get paid to post this trash? Or are yor really as poorly educated and dumb as your posts seem to indicate?
  • Reply 47 of 113
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    Pure bull. It's only obvious if Apple does it.
  • Reply 48 of 113

    Samsungs intent (which their own documents have proven) was to copy Apple, to me this overrides this ruling from people that can no longer see the uniqueness of the design of the first iPhone which since then has become the standard shape and form of all mobile phones. 

  • Reply 49 of 113
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    grkm3 wrote: »
    Consumer reports ranked the gs5 at 79 and scored higher then the iPhone 6 in user reports.


    http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-Galaxy-S5-tops-Consumer-Reports-latest-smartphone-ratings_id64274

    The iPhone scored a 77. Plus CR is subjective. The only negative was the iPhone didn't have a removable battery.
  • Reply 50 of 113
    grkm3grkm3 Posts: 30member
    tenly wrote: »
    This post is idiotic. Stop saying "loophole" and explain what you mean or don't say anything. You are trolling and attempting to rewrite history. You are making up facts. Everything about your post is incorrect.

    Your claim that Apple has been known to "patent troll" is proof enough that you just don't have a clue. Look up the definition of a patent troll and then come back and make up more facts that somehow can excuse your ignorance.

    The only actual questions I have for you are: Did you get paid to post this trash? Or are yor really as poorly educated and dumb as your posts seem to indicate?

    Maybe you should Google why the patent was invalidated and try reading it from a site that's not apple biased.
  • Reply 51 of 113
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,315member

    So the USPTO grants patents and then invalidates them years later. How did we ever get the telephone or the phonograph? Weren’t they also ‘obvious’ years later in hind sight?

  • Reply 52 of 113
    grkm3grkm3 Posts: 30member
    The problem the D'677 patent faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for now) that this patent "is not entitled to benefit of the filing date" of two previous Apple design patent applications because the design at issue was not disclosed in those earlier applications. As a result, certain prior art is eligible now, and against the background of that additional prior art, the USPTO believes the patent shouldn't have been granted.

    The first rejection for obviousness is based on the combination of U.S. Design Patent No. D546,313 (obtained by LG, another Korean device maker) with either this Sharp patent application or some Japanese design patent application (JPD1235888).

    The second rejection cites another Japanese design patent, JPD1204221, in combination with various other prior art, including among others a Samsung design patent (U.S. Design Patent No. D546,313).

    The third rejection for obviousness combines one of Apple's own design patents, U.S. Design Patent No. D602,014 with other prior art.

    Yet another Apple design patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D618,204, forms the basis of the fourth rejection.

    The main reason behind the USPTO's decision is, sadly, not really one of principle, but more of technical correctness (I doubt Samsung particularly cares either way). The D'677 patent, as it is known in shorthand, relied on two prior patents filed by Apple to obtain its original "priority" date of January 5th, 2007. The D'677 patent itself was not submitted to the USPTO until almost 2 years later, in November 2008. But because Apple claimed in its filing that the D'677 patent was sufficiently described by two other patents it had previously filed, one in early 2007, that it was entitled to the same protection date granted to those earlier patents. Yes, patent law is weird. Yes, this happens all the time. And yes, in certain circumstances this rule does make sense. (Basically, if your first patent gets initially rejected as, say, being overly broad, you can break it up into multiple more specific patents, and those new patents will enjoy the same filing date protection as the original, rejected patent, so long as the new patents contain only inventions that were sufficiently described under the law in the initial application. I know this probably makes very little sense, sorry.)

    The USPTO decided that Apple did not sufficiently describe the D'677 patent in those older patents to the extent that it could enjoy their priority date protection, and that means its protection now only extends from the actual filing date of November 2008. The problem is that if you push the protection date that far forward, there is prior art (from Samsung, LG, and even Apple itself) in the record before that November 2008 date that makes the D'677 patent invalid on the basis of obviousness.
  • Reply 53 of 113
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    grkm3 wrote: »
    The problem the D'677 patent faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for now) that this patent "is not entitled to benefit of the filing date" of two previous Apple design patent applications because the design at issue was not disclosed in those earlier applications. As a result, certain prior art is eligible now, and against the background of that additional prior art, the USPTO believes the patent shouldn't have been granted.

    The first rejection for obviousness is based on the combination of U.S. Design Patent No. D546,313 (obtained by LG, another Korean device maker) with either this Sharp patent application or some Japanese design patent application (JPD1235888).

    The second rejection cites another Japanese design patent, JPD1204221, in combination with various other prior art, including among others a Samsung design patent (U.S. Design Patent No. D546,313).

    The third rejection for obviousness combines one of Apple's own design patents, U.S. Design Patent No. D602,014 with other prior art.

    Yet another Apple design patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D618,204, forms the basis of the fourth rejection.

    The main reason behind the USPTO's decision is, sadly, not really one of principle, but more of technical correctness (I doubt Samsung particularly cares either way). The D'677 patent, as it is known in shorthand, relied on two prior patents filed by Apple to obtain its original "priority" date of January 5th, 2007. The D'677 patent itself was not submitted to the USPTO until almost 2 years later, in November 2008. But because Apple claimed in its filing that the D'677 patent was sufficiently described by two other patents it had previously filed, one in early 2007, that it was entitled to the same protection date granted to those earlier patents. Yes, patent law is weird. Yes, this happens all the time. And yes, in certain circumstances this rule does make sense. (Basically, if your first patent gets initially rejected as, say, being overly broad, you can break it up into multiple more specific patents, and those new patents will enjoy the same filing date protection as the original, rejected patent, so long as the new patents contain only inventions that were sufficiently described under the law in the initial application. I know this probably makes very little sense, sorry.)

    The USPTO decided that Apple did not sufficiently describe the D'677 patent in those older patents to the extent that it could enjoy their priority date protection, and that means its protection now only extends from the actual filing date of November 2008. The problem is that if you push the protection date that far forward, there is prior art (from Samsung, LG, and even Apple itself) in the record before that November 2008 date that makes the D'677 patent invalid on the basis of obviousness.

    Next time at least name the source you copy and paste from.
  • Reply 54 of 113
    grkm3grkm3 Posts: 30member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Next time at least name the source you copy and paste from.

    This is from Foss patents.this patent date was the main reason Samsung could not use its prior art patent with the f700 because apple got its patent date pushed back 2 years after it was patented.

    Samsung is most likely taking this to the supreme Court
  • Reply 55 of 113
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,824member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by grkm3 View Post



    The problem the D'677 patent faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for now) that this patent "is not entitled to benefit of the filing date" of two previous Apple design patent applications because the design at issue was not disclosed in those earlier applications. As a result, certain prior art is eligible now, and against the background of that additional prior art, the USPTO believes the patent shouldn't have been granted.



    The first rejection for obviousness is based on the combination of U.S. Design Patent No. D546,313 (obtained by LG, another Korean device maker) with either this Sharp patent application or some Japanese design patent application (JPD1235888).



    The second rejection cites another Japanese design patent, JPD1204221, in combination with various other prior art, including among others a Samsung design patent (U.S. Design Patent No. D546,313).



    The third rejection for obviousness combines one of Apple's own design patents, U.S. Design Patent No. D602,014 with other prior art.



    Yet another Apple design patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D618,204, forms the basis of the fourth rejection.



    The main reason behind the USPTO's decision is, sadly, not really one of principle, but more of technical correctness (I doubt Samsung particularly cares either way). The D'677 patent, as it is known in shorthand, relied on two prior patents filed by Apple to obtain its original "priority" date of January 5th, 2007. The D'677 patent itself was not submitted to the USPTO until almost 2 years later, in November 2008. But because Apple claimed in its filing that the D'677 patent was sufficiently described by two other patents it had previously filed, one in early 2007, that it was entitled to the same protection date granted to those earlier patents. Yes, patent law is weird. Yes, this happens all the time. And yes, in certain circumstances this rule does make sense. (Basically, if your first patent gets initially rejected as, say, being overly broad, you can break it up into multiple more specific patents, and those new patents will enjoy the same filing date protection as the original, rejected patent, so long as the new patents contain only inventions that were sufficiently described under the law in the initial application. I know this probably makes very little sense, sorry.)



    The USPTO decided that Apple did not sufficiently describe the D'677 patent in those older patents to the extent that it could enjoy their priority date protection, and that means its protection now only extends from the actual filing date of November 2008. The problem is that if you push the protection date that far forward, there is prior art (from Samsung, LG, and even Apple itself) in the record before that November 2008 date that makes the D'677 patent invalid on the basis of obviousness.

    So, you copy Florian Mueller without attribution?

     

    See, this is why we can't have nice things; because people as yourself copy.

     

    The irony likely escapes you.

  • Reply 56 of 113
    frankiefrankie Posts: 380member
    macvicta wrote: »
    I wouldn't put it past this administration.  Is it any wonder why the Donald Trump "Make America Great Again" movement is sweeping the nation? America knows Trump can't be bought.

    Are you joking? Trump who has his own [email protected] made overseas and only cares about himself? Yeah just what we need, run America like a business and treat citizens like employees...

    How dobyou think we got trillions into debt with half the country in poverty? Right now the 6 Walmart heirs own more wealth than half the entire country. The government can basically be bought by the super rich and what regular Americans want is completely meaningless.

    I understand the feeling of wanting someone new to turn the country around, but trump ain't it.

    Bernie Sanders would be a much better choice, and I hate BOTH political parties and the entire system.
  • Reply 57 of 113
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    What's that, you say? Oh, right... That ex-Google employee now heads the USPTO. Bet most people forgot about that.

    "Thanks, Obama!"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/16/obama-nominates-former-google-exec-to-lead-u-s-patent-office/
  • Reply 58 of 113
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    frankie wrote: »
    macvicta wrote: »
    I wouldn't put it past this administration.  Is it any wonder why the Donald Trump "Make America Great Again" movement is sweeping the nation? America knows Trump can't be bought.

    Are you joking? Trump who has his own [email protected] made overseas and only cares about himself? Yeah just what we need, run America like a business and treat citizens like employees...

    How dobyou think we got trillions into debt with half the country in poverty? Right now the 6 Walmart heirs own more wealth than half the entire country. The government can basically be bought by the super rich and what regular Americans want is completely meaningless.

    I understand the feeling of wanting someone new to turn the country around, but trump ain't it.

    Bernie Sanders would be a much better choice, and I hate BOTH political parties and the entire system.

    In other words, Trump ain't trumping :lol:
  • Reply 59 of 113
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    frankie wrote: »
    Are you joking? Trump who has his own [email protected] made overseas and only cares about himself? Yeah just what we need, run America like a business and treat citizens like employees...

    How dobyou think we got trillions into debt with half the country in poverty? Right now the 6 Walmart heirs own more wealth than half the entire country. The government can basically be bought by the super rich and what regular Americans want is completely meaningless.

    I understand the feeling of wanting someone new to turn the country around, but trump ain't it.

    Bernie Sanders would be a much better choice, and I hate BOTH political parties and the entire system.

    Bernie Sanders is a self-described Socialist. Socialists and progressives will be the end of America.
  • Reply 60 of 113
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    In other words, Trump ain't trumping :lol:

    In the unlikely and unpleasant event it came down to Trump vs. Sanders, there is no possibly way I'd support Sanders.
Sign In or Register to comment.