Judge says 'common sense' not enough to invalidate patent in Arendi v. Apple & Google
Judges cannot invoke "common sense" when considering the validity of a patent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Wednesday, impacting a case pitting Arendi S.A.R.L. against Apple and Google.
A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review board made a mistake when it used only "common knowledge and common sense" to invalidate an Arendi patent, the Court of Appeals said according to Bloomberg. The court argued that such sentiments "cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support," overturning the prior ruling.
The patent in question involves the way a computer app displays a document while searching for outside infomation, a given example being a name detection system that finds and inserts associated addresses.
Arendi has leveled infringement accusations against a host of companies, another one being Samsung. To undermine Arendi, defendants asked the USPTO to review the patent, scoring an apparently brief victory.
In July, however, the appeals court did uphold a USPTO decision to invalidate a second patent. Other challenges are still awaiting USPTO review, and will have to be resolved before Arendi's lawsuits can continue.
A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review board made a mistake when it used only "common knowledge and common sense" to invalidate an Arendi patent, the Court of Appeals said according to Bloomberg. The court argued that such sentiments "cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support," overturning the prior ruling.
The patent in question involves the way a computer app displays a document while searching for outside infomation, a given example being a name detection system that finds and inserts associated addresses.
Arendi has leveled infringement accusations against a host of companies, another one being Samsung. To undermine Arendi, defendants asked the USPTO to review the patent, scoring an apparently brief victory.
In July, however, the appeals court did uphold a USPTO decision to invalidate a second patent. Other challenges are still awaiting USPTO review, and will have to be resolved before Arendi's lawsuits can continue.
Comments
Just the first of several from Arendi (Luxembourg), this one filed in 2010. You have to scroll through several screens of references before you get to the description. Here's one of the good ones that's been in use forever:
"In recent years, with the advent of programs, such as word processors, spreadsheets, etc. (hereinafter called "word processors") and operating systems, such as WINDOWS.TM. operating system, MACINTOSH.TM. operating system, etc., users may require retrieval of information, such as name and address information, etc., for insertion into a document, such a letter, fax, etc., created with the word processor or for contact management at the operating system level. Typically, the information is retrieved by the user from an information management source external to the word processor, such as a database program, contact management program, etc., or from the word processor itself, for insertion into the document. Examples of such word processors are WORD.TM., NOTEPAD.TM., EXCEL.TM., WORDPAD.TM., WORDPERFECT.TM., QUATROPRO.TM., AMIPRO.TM., etc., and examples of such information management sources are ACCESS.TM., OUTLOOK.TM., ORACLE.TM., DBASE.TM., RBASE.TM., CARDFILE.TM., etc.
However, the information in the database must constantly be updated by the user. This requires the user to learn how to use and have access to the database. In this case, a change in the information, such as change in an address or a name, etc., requires the user of the word processor to implement this change in the database, or alternatively, the change is made to the database centrally by a database administrator."
Sound familiar to a whole lot of existing software applications? I guess the USPTO still uses a typewriter so they wouldn't know anything about word processing programs interacting with databases, which are updated by users.
This is why every american who is more than about 1 year old is a FELON and must be locked up right away.
This is because simply going about your normal business every day is a crime if you look at it only from the POV of a Lawyer and the Law.
Just sayin'
http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
It's not a viable system. There are plenty of economists and business people with this opinion, in case you think I'm pulling this out my ass or am promoting lawlessness (I'm not).
So, are you saying that once you have thought up an idea and you realize that same mechanism can be used in many different places that you should protect only one of them and not all of them?
For example, 'presence' is a concept that could be patented (it is that little indicator in chat applications which tells you whether the other person is available/offline/away etc.). Now, if there is one way to implement presence and that same mechanism can used to do presence on chat, email, video calls, mobiles, PDAs, handsets etc. etc., do I need to put in a patent for each of those devices, even though I can readily visualize all the places it can be applied to? Does it not make sense for me to make it generic and say any 'communication device that needs presence'.?
(I have five patents to my name, and I have come across many 'technical' folks whose understanding of patents is faulty). Patents don't typically protect a concept, they protect one way of implementing a concept. You are always allowed to patent another way of doing the same, and it happens all the time.
Just because a company might mention a dozen different devices does not mean they've actually considered any way their patented process could be used for one. IMHO it's often a "cover your butt" in case some other inventive guy comes up with something successful where you can grab some of his profits or push him out of the market altogether if he's treading on your patent that you had no idea to use for a product like his.
Big companies understand how to control the process and artificially regulate the market thru IP. And no I'm not referring specifically to any particular company.
As for "Patents don't typically protect a concept, they protect one way of implementing a concept. You are always allowed to patent another way of doing the same, and it happens all the time." :
How would you justify a patent for a "specific implementation" that includes vague claims and unclear technical terms. IMO specific inventions should require specific claims and clearly understood terms and vocabulary. Do you disagree with that? While I don't care for the very expansive (but gradually being roped back in) software patent claims that have been allowed, the entire purpose of being vague is to make it extremely difficult for other inventive folks to patent their own unique implementations.
Whether you as an inventor EVER imagined some particular use, you (not necessarily you personally. I don't know you) still may want to claim you did and demand payment for it or perhaps if it better serves you eliminate a competitive product from the market.
anybody should be able to write their own implementations of an idea, such as a shopping cart, one-click shopping, or other software methodologies.
as a software dev not having any any patents I think I'm in a less biased position than having my fortune derived from patents.
Sorry, didn't see your response until now. Seems a tad late
If the implementation of the concept is largely the same (with any differences being obvious), then it is equally applicable irrespective of the device that concept is used on. Let me give an example, let us say I come up with an inventive way to not drop a phone call even though the internal memory has crashed. Does it really matter if this implementation is used within a mobile phone or a desk phone or a laptop softphone? Now another person comes up with an innovative change where this can be used to keep the calls working on a full fledged server having thousands of calls. Are there not two patents now to achieve the same thing, and yet they are both applicable.
The problem with generic patents is with the USPTO not being rigorous enough. (Sometimes It almost feels like they are really tough on the good patents, and lax with the shitty ones.