Blog Editors
Recent Posts
Analyzing Tech Regulation: Shapiro's Critique and Policy Recommendations
UPCOMING EVENT: Automated Decision-Making Technology and Artificial Intelligence
Free Speech and Trademark Law Clash in Vidal v. Elster
Using Technical Solutions to Address Issues in Privacy Law: A Talk by Professor Zubair Shafiq
An Introduction to Venture Capital
Archive
California AB 1844 and the Role of Social Media in the Employment Process
Mobile Patent Wars Heat Up as USPTO Invalidates Key Apple Patents
Star Wars v. Finding Nemo: Did Disney Overpay for Lucasfilm?
The Rise and Growth of Crowdfunding Websites
Zappos, Online Contracts, and the Perils of Browsewrap Agreements
A General History of Western Trade Secret Law from the Time of Preliterate Society to Today - Pt. 2
Apple and Google Consider Arbitration for Worldwide Patent Disputes
A General History of Western Trade Secret Law from the Time of Preliterate Society to Today - Pt. 1
Apple's Slide to Unlock Patent and the Issue of Patent Continuations
Funding Your Project Pt. 1: Kickstarter and Lockitron
Apple's Double Standard: Apple's Contentions with MySpace and Samsung Icons
Sprinting Towards Success? SoftBank’s Investment in the US Market
Google News Under Fire Around the World
Court Fines Man $1.5 Million for Uploading 10 Porn Flicks to BitTorrent
Mobile Patent Wars Heat Up as USPTO Invalidates Key Apple Patents
Posted By Dominick Severance, Jan 28, 2013
This past August, a San Jose jury found that Samsung infringed a multitude of Apple’s IP rights including two of Apple’s patents, 7,469,381 and 7,479,949. In September, a German court granted Apple an injunction against Motorola Mobility for the European version of the ‘381 and ‘949 patents. On October 23, however, Apple suffered a setback when the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidated every claim of ‘381. In October, a U.S. International Trade Court (ITC) judge explicitly found the ‘949 patent to be valid and issued a preliminary ruling finding that Samsung had infringed. On December 7, the USPTO invalidated every claim of ‘949. Within a five month period, Apple had won three separate battles against competitors over its ‘381 and ‘949 patents and also had the USPTO invalidate both of those patents. The question remains as to whether any of the aforementioned courts would reverse their own rulings or the findings of the jury due to the USPTO invalidating the ‘381 and ‘949 patents. Samsung, for instance, has requested the judge in the San Jose case set aside the verdict and issue a new trial. Whether the judges will grant requests such as Samsungs depends on a number of factors. For instance, while the USPTO decisively invalidated every claim in the ‘381 and ‘949 patents, Apple still retains the right to a series of appeals of the USPTO’s decisions. Thus, the USPTO's decisions are not final rulings as to the validity of the patents. But, regardless of whether the judges’ reverse their decisions, Apple is fully capable of continuing its aggressive litigation strategy using its treasure trove of other patents. Thus, although the USPTO gave Apple a momentary setback, the mobile patent wars are just heating up. Source (Fosspatents): http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/us-patent-office-declares-steve-jobs.html Source (Fosspatents): http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/patent-office-tentatively-invalidates.html