Apple seeking to invalidate touchscreen patents used against it in lawsuit

AppleInsider

Apple has filed a lawsuit that seeks to invalidate intellectual property at the center of a patent infringement complaint lodged five years ago.

Credit: Apple

The property in question is a pair of patents related to mobile touchscreen graphical interfaces owned by a company called Zeroclick. In 2015, Zeroclick levied a lawsuit at Apple which alleged the company's iPhone touchscreens infringed on those patents.

In a new complaint filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple seeks a judicial decision that the two Zeroclick patents are invalid or unpatentable.

The two patents, which were granted to Zeroclick in 2010 and 2013, cover a graphical user interface (GUI) and an "apparatus" which enables "functions of controls in the GUI to be activated by a movement to a control and then another subsequent movement related to that control."

For both patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,549,443 and 7,818,691, Apple writes that one or more of their claims are "drawn to abstract ideas without the addition of any inventive steps sufficient to qualify as a patent-eligible invention."

The complaint goes on to add that one or more claims are "anticipated or rendered obvious" and that one or more claims are "indefinite" by way of using generic terms and phrases.

Apple's current litigation appears to be preemptive since a judge struck down Zeroclick's original lawsuit in 2017. That's because the original Zeroclick entity divested itself the IP and transferred all rights to Dr. Nes Irvine, the named inventor of the patents. Apple notes that it's likely that a second entity named Zeroclick, a Texas-based LLC that Dr. Irvine formed in November 2019, will continue to use the two patents in further lawsuits.

In fact, in January 2020, Dr. Irvine transferred the IP rights to the second Zeroclick entity. The original entity attempted to argue that the court should permit "Zeroclick 2" to be substituted in the litigation.

Apple is seeking both patents to be rendered invalid, as well as any other relief that the Court deems "just and proper."

Apple v Zeroclick by Mikey Campbell on Scribd

(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "https://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

eriamjh

I should patent A thing that does a thing that enables another thing.  

netrox

eriamjh said:

I should patent A thing that does a thing that enables another thing.  

Exactly! The patent idea is so vague. I cannot see how it can be upheld. 

chasm

Phase 1: Steal underpants

Phase 2: Sue Apple?

Phase 3: Profit!!

Rayz2016

"apparatus" which enables "functions of controls in the GUI to be activated by a movement to a control and then another subsequent movement related to that control."

What the f …

Some idiot let them patent everything related to graphical user interfaces, decades after graphical user interfaces were invented. 

Hope someone fired the muppet. 

lkrupp

It's the patent system that's broken and these non practicing entities are taking advantage of it. @Rayz2016 is right. The idiots at the patent office approve everything and let the courts sort it out. At least Albert Einstein, when he was a patent clerk in Bern, took the time to investigate. U.S. patent clerks these days not so much.

JinTech

eriamjh said:

I should patent A thing that does a thing that enables another thing.  

You will be sued within seconds.

gatorguy

lkrupp said:

It's the patent system that's broken and these non practicing entities are taking advantage of it. @Rayz2016 is right. The idiots at the patent office approve everything and let the courts sort it out. At least Albert Einstein, when he was a patent clerk in Bern, took the time to investigate. U.S. patent clerks these days not so much.

Not just the NPE's. Practising entities take advantage of the patent system too. Big tech, for example, attempts to patent everything and anything, much of it with no plans to ever create a product utilizing it, but effective at keeping a thumb on potential competition. It's all become too much of a scam, far removed from the original intent of patents. 

One way to approach the problem of "big tech patents everything" is compulsory licensing. There's no public benefit to building gates for technology advancements then slapping artificial locks on them. IMO it's coming sooner or later and probably sooner, and not just in technology. There's already a lot of pressure for it in pharma, and some laws around the globe have already been changed. 

mcdave

lkrupp said:

It's the patent system that's broken and these non practicing entities are taking advantage of it. @Rayz2016 is right. The idiots at the patent office approve everything and let the courts sort it out. At least Albert Einstein, when he was a patent clerk in Bern, took the time to investigate. U.S. patent clerks these days not so much.

Perhaps these fraudulent patent infringement claims should be themselves prosecuted as fraud.

Doesn’t this claim describe the pre-existing home screen icon management item to folder insertion mechanism? Or spring loaded folder from macOS of ages ago?