Apple's D'677 patent (right) shows a design different from two previous applications.
Posted on 08/18/2015 4:51:54 PM PDT by Swordmaker
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office earlier this month found an iPhone design patent successfully leveraged by Apple against Samsung in its first court action invalid on multiple counts, bringing Apple's $548 million damages award into question.
Spotted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the non-final decision regarding Apple's U.S. Patent No. D618,677, known as the D'677 patent, was handed down by the USPTO's Central Reexamination Division on Aug. 5.
The decision follows an anonymous ex parte examination request -- likely filed by Samsung -- calling the design patent's validity into question. Mueller believes Apple is going to have a hard time arguing validity considering the long period between ex parte requests and the resulting Office action. Further, the non-final decision determined the patent's single claim was rejected twice for obviousness, once for obviousness in connection with a published patent application and once over novelty.
The USPTO is also not allowing Apple to claim benefit of filing date related to two previous patent applications covering the same design, which are thus cited as prior art. As seen in the image above, taken from the USPTO's decision, D'677 shows different design attributes from Apple's own prior art and therefore does not meet requirements of patentability laid out in Title 35 of the U.S. Code. A pair of non-Apple patents, one from LG and another from Japan, are the basis of the USPTO's other two rejections for obviousness.
As applied to the first Apple v. Samsung patent trial, Samsung was found to have infringed on D'677 with its Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant smartphone models. In two cases, specifically the Galaxy S2 Skyrocket and Galaxy S2 Epic 4G, the jury based infringement findings solely on D'677.
The Apple v. Samsung jury handed down its decision three years ago, but proceedings continue to drag on as both parties mount exhaustive appeals. Samsung was able to whittle down an initial $1.05 billion damages ruling to about $548 million through a partial retrial and a successful Federal Circuit appeal, but was most recently denied an en banc rehearing to further reduce damages by $399 million. The Korean company still has the option to take its argument to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As always in a Design Patent, dashed lines are NOT included in the design or patent and included only for reference. Only solid lines are part of the patent. Therefore the design being covered is the screen in black. . . no longer differentiated between the black bands at the top and bottom. This is different from the original iPhone where the screen showed a distinct gray field when not active. It looks as if Apple's designers wanted to cover the monolithic black look of the front of the Apple iPhone with this design patent. Prior designs allowed for slight screen differentiations between the bezels and the screen. — Swordmaker
THERE ARE THOSE WHO’D LOVE for the PATENT to be a thing of The PAST...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
They's have to amend the US Constitution. . . and the laws of almost every country of the world.
there was a movement some years ago who proposed doing just that.
I agree we need some reforms, but not elimination. Copyrights and patents are important part of our economy. Only those who do not understand how they work call for their elimination. . . mostly socialists, other leftists, and anti-property types.
That just about covers it!
“socialists, other leftists, and anti-property types.”
this who wish to SHARE...that which is Not Theirs..to share...in some sense or another.
I saw some graffiti recently that simply said “property is theft”
it doesn’t get much further LEFT than that.
To do so would be foolish, and rob individuals of the capability to protect their own inventiveness. Eliminating patents is simply stupid and counter to capitalism.
What is the point of creativity, ingenuity, innovation, and productivity if there is no reward for such (other than intrinsic value)?
The patent is granted, used multiple times later as the basis for both lawsuit decisions, and for other purposes - all without question.
Now, suddenly, the patent may be “invalid” because of the patented design is “obvious”? Really?
I just don’t understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.