Apple "Pinch to zoom" patent thrown out by US patent office.

13»

Comments

  • swordmanswordman Posts: 6,679
    Forum Member
    Which would by extension make it "new" and you must be the inventor
  • RoushRoush Posts: 4,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    swordman wrote: »
    Again not my understanding of this, it will remain active as far as the court case goes but that is nothing to do with the USPTO decision.

    The bounce back (I assume) was slightly different.

    In any event this patent will be lost to apple whether it is now or not.

    From Judge Koh's case management order on 29/04/2013:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/138636778/13-04-29-Apple-Samsung-Case-Management-Order-Limited-Retrial-Etc

    For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED without prejudice Samsung's Request for a Stay pending reexamination of the ’381 and ’915 patents at issue in the new damages trial.

    o Samsung may renew its motion for a stay of the new trial on damages as to the ’381 patent if the USPTO does not re-open the prosecution of the '381 reexamination following Apple’s response to the final office action finding claim 19 of the '381 patent invalid. Any such motion, and any opposition to such motion, may not exceed three (3) pages in length. The parties shall contact Ms. Parker Brown for a hearing date. The response to any such motion is due ten days after the filing of a motion.

    o Similarly, if the USPTO issues a final office action finding claim 8 of the ’915 patent invalid, and does not re-open the prosecution of the ’915 reexamination following Apple’s response to the final office action, Samsung may re-new its motion for a stay of the new trial on damages as to the ’915 patent. Such a motion will be subject to the same limitations and procedures as set forth above.



    As you can see, very much tied in to what's happening at the USPTO regarding this patent. If the patent was indeed considered invalid now then infringement proceedings would be halted. You can't have a damages trial and ruling over an invalid patent.

    The bit I highlighted is the event that has just occurred. Samsung can only renew its motion for a stay if the USPTO rejects Apple's response.
  • swordmanswordman Posts: 6,679
    Forum Member
    That leaves the door open for apple to appeal still so the patent has not received a final ruling technically until that time expires or apple chose not to appeal.

    The same as a court will suspend a ruling pending an appeal hearing etc but it does not make the original ruling invalid until then. So the judge cannot rule or make any decision on the patent until a final ruling pending an apple appeal.

    However i still think the patent is ruled invalid by the USPTO as of now, which has nothing to do with the court case.

    Having said all of that I don't claim to be 100% either way nor does it really matter as apple won't appeal.
  • tdensontdenson Posts: 5,773
    Forum Member
    The abstract describes a dynamic company logo after a period of time. Sounds like google doodle to me. :confused:

    Well of course it does, because google doodle is a specific example of the generic technology they have patented. It's like if they patented the use of 6 letter company names and you were to say "google sounds to me like a 6 letter name"
  • RoushRoush Posts: 4,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    swordman wrote: »
    However i still think the patent is ruled invalid by the USPTO as of now
    No, it's still valid.

    USPTO reexamination procedures are clear. No modifications and/or invalidations are formal and affect the patent until a reexamination certificate is issued, which the USPTO's ruling in relation to this patent clearly indicates has not been issued.

    http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/documents/term_reexam_proceed.doc

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/156502653/13-07-26-Cover-Page-Final-USPTO-Action-Rejecting-Apple-s-915-Pinch-To-zoom-API-Patent
Sign In or Register to comment.