Half? Is it that high? Do you have a credible reference for this? Thanks.
Of course I do.
I was coming back to correct my original comment as it's actually even higher than that. I was remembering only the percentage trimmed back or tossed altogether by litigation.
"Several empirical studies have attempted to track the percentage of litigated patents that the courts conclude the USPTO improvidently granted. One study conducted by John R. Allison, a member of the University of Texas business school faculty, and Mark A. Lemley, a member of the Stanford Law School faculty, concluded that courts hold 46% of patents litigated to a final judgment to be invalid. Other studies have reported results broadly consistent with the Allison & Lemley research."
But the patent failure rate on PTSO reexaminations may be as high as 75%.
"Historically, inter partes reexaminations have a higher probability of invalidating a patent than ex parte reexaminations, presumably because the requester can submit arguments and evidence against the patent during inter partesreexaminations. In ex parte reexaminations, about 30 percent of the patents are affirmed (the patent has been found valid over the submitted prior art), 10 percent of the patents are invalidated, and 60 percent of the patents survived with reduced patent scope. Approximately 500–600 requests for ex parte reexamination are filed each year. In inter partesreexaminations, about 8 percent of the patents are affirmed, 75 percent of the patents are invalidated, and 17 percent of the patents survive with reduced patent scope. Only a small number of inter partes reexaminations have been concluded because they were first introduced in 1999 and are still relatively new. Moreover, only patents filed on or after November 29, 1999, are eligible for inter partes reexamination. Thus, historical statistics for inter partes reexaminations might not be as reliable. "
Rejection A and Rejection D are based on prior art considerations, one from PCT Publication No. WO 03/081458 on "controlling content display," by AOL/Luigi Lira, published on October 2, 2003 and U.S. Patent No. 7,786,975 on a "continuous scrolling list with acceleration," with named inventors Bas Ording, Scott Forstall, Greg Christie, Stephen O. Lemay and Imran Chaudhri.
Very strange. I read the other patents in question and I see nothing that describes the "rubber banding" effect or specifically the "inertial scroll". Instead the patents refer vaguely to applying acceleration or deceleration in scrolling, but is far too vague to make Apple's specific claims invalid. In addition, much of Lira and Ording is covered by prior art with other UI patents. Pretty fishy waters.
Inertia and acceleration/deceleration are highly related. Remember high school physics?
The US patent office issued the patent , if anyone should be liable for damages it should be the US patent office. Why should they be allowed to issue patents , let companies spend millions defending an issued patent and then say oh sorry we made a mistake you cant have that patent.
not good enough !!!
Russell has spoken. The patents are "tentatively" valid again.
I was coming back to correct my original comment as it's actually even higher than that. I was remembering only the percentage trimmed back or tossed altogether by litigation.
"Several empirical studies have attempted to track the percentage of litigated patents that the courts conclude the USPTO improvidently granted. One study conducted by John R. Allison, a member of the University of Texas business school faculty, and Mark A. Lemley, a member of the Stanford Law School faculty, concluded that courts hold 46% of patents litigated to a final judgment to be invalid. Other studies have reported results broadly consistent with the Allison & Lemley research."
But the patent failure rate on PTSO reexaminations may be as high as 75%.
"Historically, inter partes reexaminations have a higher probability of invalidating a patent than ex parte reexaminations, presumably because the requester can submit arguments and evidence against the patent during inter partesreexaminations. In ex parte reexaminations, about 30 percent of the patents are affirmed (the patent has been found valid over the submitted prior art), 10 percent of the patents are invalidated, and 60 percent of the patents survived with reduced patent scope. Approximately 500–600 requests for ex parte reexamination are filed each year. In inter partesreexaminations, about 8 percent of the patents are affirmed, 75 percent of the patents are invalidated, and 17 percent of the patents survive with reduced patent scope. Only a small number of inter partes reexaminations have been concluded because they were first introduced in 1999 and are still relatively new. Moreover, only patents filed on or after November 29, 1999, are eligible for inter partes reexamination. Thus, historical statistics for inter partes reexaminations might not be as reliable. "
Thanks. To an extent, this makes sense when I think about it. Parties challenging the patents won't go to extensive trouble to do this unless they are well prepared.
[quote]"Half of all patents are invalid" is not the same half of all re-examined patents being invalidated. Are you sure you know what you are saying?[/quote]
Yeah I know, but Google is so amazing it automatically knows what I mean
It was reported in May that an anonymous request to reexamine the '381 patent, along with Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 for touchscreen heuristics. At the time, it was thought that Android maker Google lodged the request, however it could have been any number of rival companies in the business of building smartphones.
It was almost certainly Google, accompanied by a significant lobbying effort directed at the PTO. It's got Google written all over it.
Better watch out Google, more than one company can play the "anonymous" patent re-examination game. It'd be a shame if suddenly a massive amount of Google patents started getting this. Starting with those nice juicy ones you paid all those Billions for.
Better watch out Google, more than one company can play the "anonymous" patent re-examination game. It'd be a shame if suddenly a massive amount of Google patents started getting this. Starting with those nice juicy ones you paid all those Billions for.
There's absolutely no doubt some percentage of those are invalid in whole or part just as Apple's are. But even an eventually "invalid" patent can work to slow down the competition if it hasn't yet been ruled on, which is all that's needed much of the time. Personally I think that's the sole intent of some of these claims, with the company holding the IP realizing there's validity issues with it if challenged.
There is no functional value of the bounce. It is just lazy for Android designer to copy most features on iPhone without even thinking about it. This has no bearing on whether there is a patent or not on this feature. Just as an example, when Apple redo the map, the grass look greener and less pastel than the Google Map.
Apple is of course free to bring another suit using that patent's claims. So far Apple's never used that one in litigation AFAIK, so the validity of it hasn't yet been challenged. It might come out unscathed. . . or not.
Wow, wonder if Apple will ever get that billion. In the real world the more Apple litigates the more free publicity Samsung gets and the more sales went up for the Galaxy S3. Let go of the anger and move on. If Apple has the best products they will stay on top.
Sorry, but none of the explanations above make much sense.
Where's jragosta when we need him?
What do you need him for? He only shows up first when it's good for Apple anyway. Everyone's favorite shill explained it pretty well and clearly on his blog this morning, even if the last paragraph shows his biased colors straight through.
First off, people always claim patent examiners lack the skills or knowledge to be able to grant technical or software patents. Using the same logic, how can they now be skilled enough to invalidate a patent? This is nothing more than the USPTO saying "Apple, the ball's in your court - you have to spend the time & money to prove this patent is valid - we're not going to do the work for you."
As to the previous posts about most patents being invalidated, where's the breakdown? There's no way companies like IBM, Microsoft or Apple (with their highly skilled patent attorneys and legal departments) are going to have the same rate of invalidation as small companies or individuals. Without a breakdown the study is absolutely worthless.
I'd like to remind everyone about Microsoft and their FAT patent. First it was granted, then a huge lobby of companies and organizations protested and asked for re-examination. The USPTO invalidated several patents, MS appealed and a couple years later they were validated and remain valid to this date.
Several courts and judges around the world in different jurisdictions have found this patent to be valid. If Apple had a 50:50 success rate then you could imply their success at getting this overturned would also be 50:50. Since they've been successful with this patent in front of numerous judges, I think the odds of Apple having this patent validated (permanently) is going to be quite good.
Finally, the amount of damages Samsung was awarded was due to several design and technical patents. Even if they took out damages for this patent while waiting for things to reach a final decision, it would only represent a small portion of the judgement. So for the haters who think Samsung is going to get out of paying anything because of a single patent, well, it's nice to dream, isn't it?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
Half? Is it that high? Do you have a credible reference for this? Thanks.
Of course I do.
I was coming back to correct my original comment as it's actually even higher than that. I was remembering only the percentage trimmed back or tossed altogether by litigation.
"Several empirical studies have attempted to track the percentage of litigated patents that the courts conclude the USPTO improvidently granted. One study conducted by John R. Allison, a member of the University of Texas business school faculty, and Mark A. Lemley, a member of the Stanford Law School faculty, concluded that courts hold 46% of patents litigated to a final judgment to be invalid. Other studies have reported results broadly consistent with the Allison & Lemley research."
http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/crs/R40378_011410.pdf
But the patent failure rate on PTSO reexaminations may be as high as 75%.
"Historically, inter partes reexaminations have a higher probability of invalidating a patent than ex parte reexaminations, presumably because the requester can submit arguments and evidence against the patent during inter partesreexaminations. In ex parte reexaminations, about 30 percent of the patents are affirmed (the patent has been found valid over the submitted prior art), 10 percent of the patents are invalidated, and 60 percent of the patents survived with reduced patent scope. Approximately 500–600 requests for ex parte reexamination are filed each year. In inter partesreexaminations, about 8 percent of the patents are affirmed, 75 percent of the patents are invalidated, and 17 percent of the patents survive with reduced patent scope. Only a small number of inter partes reexaminations have been concluded because they were first introduced in 1999 and are still relatively new. Moreover, only patents filed on or after November 29, 1999, are eligible for inter partes reexamination. Thus, historical statistics for inter partes reexaminations might not be as reliable. "
http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=0bec1674-3da8-47cd-9c32-181aa4e0ed8b
There's a more plain-English article on patents, reexaminations, and invalidity over at Techdirt:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120816/01045920068/why-do-we-assume-patents-are-valid-when-patent-offices-own-numbers-show-they-get-things-wrong-all-time.shtml
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
Gatorguy's right. Simply googling "Half of all patents are invalid" gives you several results from .edu links
"Half of all patents are invalid" is not the same half of all re-examined patents being invalidated. Are you sure you know what you are saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Rejection A and Rejection D are based on prior art considerations, one from PCT Publication No. WO 03/081458 on "controlling content display," by AOL/Luigi Lira, published on October 2, 2003 and U.S. Patent No. 7,786,975 on a "continuous scrolling list with acceleration," with named inventors Bas Ording, Scott Forstall, Greg Christie, Stephen O. Lemay and Imran Chaudhri.
Gosh that name sounds familiar.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanziboy
Very strange. I read the other patents in question and I see nothing that describes the "rubber banding" effect or specifically the "inertial scroll". Instead the patents refer vaguely to applying acceleration or deceleration in scrolling, but is far too vague to make Apple's specific claims invalid. In addition, much of Lira and Ording is covered by prior art with other UI patents. Pretty fishy waters.
Inertia and acceleration/deceleration are highly related. Remember high school physics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Brown
The US patent office issued the patent , if anyone should be liable for damages it should be the US patent office. Why should they be allowed to issue patents , let companies spend millions defending an issued patent and then say oh sorry we made a mistake you cant have that patent.
not good enough !!!
Russell has spoken. The patents are "tentatively" valid again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Of course I do.
I was coming back to correct my original comment as it's actually even higher than that. I was remembering only the percentage trimmed back or tossed altogether by litigation.
"Several empirical studies have attempted to track the percentage of litigated patents that the courts conclude the USPTO improvidently granted. One study conducted by John R. Allison, a member of the University of Texas business school faculty, and Mark A. Lemley, a member of the Stanford Law School faculty, concluded that courts hold 46% of patents litigated to a final judgment to be invalid. Other studies have reported results broadly consistent with the Allison & Lemley research."
http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/crs/R40378_011410.pdf
But the patent failure rate on PTSO reexaminations may be as high as 75%.
"Historically, inter partes reexaminations have a higher probability of invalidating a patent than ex parte reexaminations, presumably because the requester can submit arguments and evidence against the patent during inter partesreexaminations. In ex parte reexaminations, about 30 percent of the patents are affirmed (the patent has been found valid over the submitted prior art), 10 percent of the patents are invalidated, and 60 percent of the patents survived with reduced patent scope. Approximately 500–600 requests for ex parte reexamination are filed each year. In inter partesreexaminations, about 8 percent of the patents are affirmed, 75 percent of the patents are invalidated, and 17 percent of the patents survive with reduced patent scope. Only a small number of inter partes reexaminations have been concluded because they were first introduced in 1999 and are still relatively new. Moreover, only patents filed on or after November 29, 1999, are eligible for inter partes reexamination. Thus, historical statistics for inter partes reexaminations might not be as reliable. "
http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=0bec1674-3da8-47cd-9c32-181aa4e0ed8b
There's a more plain-English article on patents, reexaminations, and invalidity over at Techdirt:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120816/01045920068/why-do-we-assume-patents-are-valid-when-patent-offices-own-numbers-show-they-get-things-wrong-all-time.shtml
Thanks. To an extent, this makes sense when I think about it. Parties challenging the patents won't go to extensive trouble to do this unless they are well prepared.
That this high profile patent is invalidated only after the case is finished and the verdict is rendered seems extremely fishy to me.
I smell big money politics at play.
Yeah I know, but Google is so amazing it automatically knows what I mean
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
It was reported in May that an anonymous request to reexamine the '381 patent, along with Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 for touchscreen heuristics. At the time, it was thought that Android maker Google lodged the request, however it could have been any number of rival companies in the business of building smartphones.
It was almost certainly Google, accompanied by a significant lobbying effort directed at the PTO. It's got Google written all over it.
Better watch out Google, more than one company can play the "anonymous" patent re-examination game. It'd be a shame if suddenly a massive amount of Google patents started getting this. Starting with those nice juicy ones you paid all those Billions for.
Sorry, but none of the explanations above make much sense.
Where's jragosta when we need him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Sorry, but none of the explanations above make much sense.
Where's jragosta when we need him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beg
Better watch out Google, more than one company can play the "anonymous" patent re-examination game. It'd be a shame if suddenly a massive amount of Google patents started getting this. Starting with those nice juicy ones you paid all those Billions for.
There's absolutely no doubt some percentage of those are invalid in whole or part just as Apple's are. But even an eventually "invalid" patent can work to slow down the competition if it hasn't yet been ruled on, which is all that's needed much of the time. Personally I think that's the sole intent of some of these claims, with the company holding the IP realizing there's validity issues with it if challenged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tasslehawf
What was the prior art?
Ruled anticipated by one of Apple's very own patents filed back in 2005.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,786,975.PN.&OS=PN/7,786,975&RS=PN/7,786,975
Apple is of course free to bring another suit using that patent's claims. So far Apple's never used that one in litigation AFAIK, so the validity of it hasn't yet been challenged. It might come out unscathed. . . or not.
Wow, wonder if Apple will ever get that billion. In the real world the more Apple litigates the more free publicity Samsung gets and the more sales went up for the Galaxy S3. Let go of the anger and move on. If Apple has the best products they will stay on top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Sorry, but none of the explanations above make much sense.
Where's jragosta when we need him?
What do you need him for? He only shows up first when it's good for Apple anyway. Everyone's favorite shill explained it pretty well and clearly on his blog this morning, even if the last paragraph shows his biased colors straight through.
Minor issue that will be blown out of proportion.
First off, people always claim patent examiners lack the skills or knowledge to be able to grant technical or software patents. Using the same logic, how can they now be skilled enough to invalidate a patent? This is nothing more than the USPTO saying "Apple, the ball's in your court - you have to spend the time & money to prove this patent is valid - we're not going to do the work for you."
As to the previous posts about most patents being invalidated, where's the breakdown? There's no way companies like IBM, Microsoft or Apple (with their highly skilled patent attorneys and legal departments) are going to have the same rate of invalidation as small companies or individuals. Without a breakdown the study is absolutely worthless.
I'd like to remind everyone about Microsoft and their FAT patent. First it was granted, then a huge lobby of companies and organizations protested and asked for re-examination. The USPTO invalidated several patents, MS appealed and a couple years later they were validated and remain valid to this date.
Several courts and judges around the world in different jurisdictions have found this patent to be valid. If Apple had a 50:50 success rate then you could imply their success at getting this overturned would also be 50:50. Since they've been successful with this patent in front of numerous judges, I think the odds of Apple having this patent validated (permanently) is going to be quite good.
Finally, the amount of damages Samsung was awarded was due to several design and technical patents. Even if they took out damages for this patent while waiting for things to reach a final decision, it would only represent a small portion of the judgement. So for the haters who think Samsung is going to get out of paying anything because of a single patent, well, it's nice to dream, isn't it?