Prior Art Evidence Leads USPTO To Declare Apple’s Rubber-Banding Patent Invalid

(8:17 am PDT, Oct 23rd 2012)

Prior Art Evidence Leads USPTO To Declare Apple’s Rubber-Banding Patent Invalid

Apple has just lost one of its magic patent bullets thanks to a non-final Office action by the USPTO. Patent No, 7,469,381 (used against Samsung in California) has been declared invalid after evidence supporting prior art (as well as being obvious) was brought about during a reexamination request.

Prior Art Evidence Leads USPTO To Declare Apple’s Rubber-Banding Patent Invalid

This news is not only great for Samsung, but many other manufacturers who are currently caught up in Apple’s legal charades.

What happens now? Well, as most decisions like these — the first isn’t exactly the last. There will be a series of reexaminations and Office rulings before a “final Office action” is handed down. And even then, it can be reconsidered and appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. In other words: “get ready for a very long ride.”

As for Samsung, they had already worked around the infringing patent (even before the California ruling), but an invalidation of the patent would result in Samsung having to pay less damages to Apple and the possibility of once again implementing the bounce-back effect in its devices (US only for now).

This news is important on many levels. Hopefully it will bring rise to more reexaminations and more invalid patents. Take all the BS ammo away from companies, allow them only to retain that which they deserve, and then, perhaps we’ll see an end to frivolous patent lawsuits and a focus on innovation.

*Fingers crossed*

Apps you might like

Comment »

  • http://thesoapvox.com ElVox

    “Take all the BS ammo away from companies, allow them only to retain that which they deserve, and then, perhaps we’ll see an end to frivolous patent lawsuits and a focus on innovation.”

    Uhm…you do realize that the people that says “focus on innovation” when talking about being allowed to COPY what the patent holder “owns” is not only stupid but contradictory? innovation means create new, not being allowed to copy what others do (and I’m not defending Apple…I hate patents with a passion, all of them, but I also believe that anything that’s legal can and should be used until it isn’t…fair doesn’t matter in war and economics). So…either you want innovation or you want permission to copy what others do first, you can’t want both.

    • http://twitter.com/mant0x Mantas A. (mant0x)

      You’re talking BS.

      • http://thesoapvox.com ElVox

        I’ll take it all back if you can demonstrate that permission to copy leads to innovation…on the other hand, if you had a coherent, rational argument, you wouldn’t post out of your ass :)

        • http://twitter.com/mant0x Mantas A. (mant0x)

          Simple example is “rectangles with rounded corners”, you’re welcome.

          • http://thesoapvox.com ElVox

            You do know that Apple has never sued anybody for that patent, right? Not ever, not anywhere.

          • http://www.facebook.com/podesta1971 James Podesta

            I think he means, you wouldn’t have that if you weren’t allowed to copy the rectangles in the first place. Can you give me an example of innovation that isn’t evolutionary?

          • http://thesoapvox.com ElVox

            The GUI at PARC.

            And I see no problem with evolution…it’s the only way to grow…but evolution and cloneing is not the same thing. The iPad mini is the evolution of the iPhone 5′s design language applied to a larger form factor…the GooPhone iPad Mini is a clone…and you can’t tell me there’s any innovation in that…or that the Galaxy S3 is natural evolution of the design language of the S2, which is a clone of the design language of the iPhone 3G/3Gs…the S3 *is* original design, and has nothing in common with the S2, except the brand.

    • rickneworleansla
      • http://thesoapvox.com ElVox

        Yeah, so? Transform…not copy…the act of transforming creates new…copies don’t create new, copies create copies, nothing more.

        • http://twitter.com/mant0x Mantas A. (mant0x)

          You are dumb Apple fan boy.

  • lucascott

    “non-final Office action”

    which means that it’s not invalid yet. Just that it might be.

    So you might want to hold off on the headlines.

  • http://profiles.google.com/sigzero Robert X

    Your headline is absurdly wrong.

About the author

Vincent MessinaVincent Messina has been writing and evangelizing about Android for the past three years. When he's not playing the part of "Loki" to his 5 and 4-year-old, he can be found here, covering all things Android. He adamantly believes Android has the greatest community around and can be harassed at any of the following locations: Google+, Twitter.

email hidden; JavaScript is required| Read more posts by .

Posted in Android, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , |


scribol