Apple Scores Win in AliveCor Legal Battle With USPTO Invalidating Several Patents

[Pezimak]

I feel obliged to agree. I understand that they need to protect their tech, but Tim follows through with his words of "the biggest difference Apple can make is in health" it follows that certain tech should be pretty much open source.

I understand that at times things need to be locked down (like side loading) but they could definitely have made a difference here.

Making a difference though isn’t killing off the competition and performing no innovation. Apple is doing that here, yes Alivekor seemingly started this fight, but Apple dominates the portable ECG market by a significant number, yet since it’s introduction on the Apple watch they’ve made zero improvements to it. Just fixed bugs.
Thats why if they kill Alivecor off then I expect nothing will improve, they have no need to. Millions buying a product years old still.

 

[steve09090]

They patented an oblong shape. They tried to use that to beat Samsung, and outside the US they failed miserably thst patent. Hence my comment, a bit sarcastic yes, but I‘ve learnt that in the US you seemingly can patent literally anything you like. Maybe not a wheel, but I can see an army of court cases against the Apple car.

The also tried to copyright "App" (the word). Because no one had used it prior.

 

[MacTiki]

Well they could you know, just stop granting patents at will without any research what so ever ignoring prior art or other patents and always granting them when a fat pay cheque is handed over to them, that might help. The US patent system is and always has been a joke frankly. And other courts around the world do not even recognise some of their patents due to that if I recall.

You wait for the Apple car, I guarantee Apple will claim they’ve patented the wheel even on that thing. I can see years of litigation action against Apple, which the US courts will side with Apple on, once it’s released.

“The United States Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board today invalidated a trio of AliveCor patents that AliveCor used in a complaint with the International Trade”

There is no accountability for the Patent Office. If this was a real estate transaction due diligence would have required a title search. If an issue with the title arises after the sale of the property then someone other than the purchaser would be on the hook for the error.

The patent office is a bureaucratic boondoggle that has become a tool used by corporations to hold ideas and creativity hostage.

It is absurd to believe that an idea/thought can be patented and it is sheer madness that companies are allowed to patent a persons genome or sue farms who’s crops have been cross pollinated from neighboring GMO patented crops.

 

[Pezimak]

The also tried to copyright "App" (the word). Because no one had used it prior.

Crazy they wanted to patent a ‘word’.

 

[Pezimak]

“The United States Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board today invalidated a trio of AliveCor patents that AliveCor used in a complaint with the International Trade”

There is no accountability for the Patent Office. If this was a real estate transaction due diligence would have required a title search. If an issue with the title arises after the sale of the property then someone other than the purchaser would be on the hook for the error.

The patent office is a bureaucratic boondoggle that has become a tool used by corporations to hold ideas and creativity hostage.

It is absurd to believe that an idea/thought can be patented and it is sheer madness that companies are allowed to patent a persons genome or sue farms who’s crops have been cross pollinated from neighboring GMO patented crops.

Yeap, it’s flawed and abused as you say. But in the US at least it’s legal standing. Lawyers must love it.

 

[Miles Teg]

Crazy they wanted to patent a ‘word’.

Microsoft owns a trademark for the word "Windows"

 

[robbietop]

Then how did they get patented in the first place?

Reform patents.....if a product is not launched with half a decade, what is the point of a patent?

You can't just sit on a patent and do nothing and if the patent is that good, get investors or be bought out.

 

[SoGood]

The whole patenting system is a big con for the lawyers to make their money. Issuing patents that the courts invalidates makes a fool of the system along with great costs to the applicants and then during the litigation fight. Worst, big guys can often trump the little guys with purchased legal firepower. Lawyers laugh all the way to the bank every step of the way!

 

[jlc1978]

The patent office is a bureaucratic boondoggle that has become a tool used by corporations to hold ideas and creativity hostage.

Part of the problem is the sheer volume of patent application precludes detailed reviews; and thus examiners must rely on submissions. If they did detailed reviews, it could take years before issuance and cause real havoc as all of a sudden a tech that may be in widespread use is covered by a patent and is infringing simply becasue it took 10 years to isue teh patent.

Crazy they wanted to patent a ‘word’.

Moe likely trademark, which is pretty common; words such as apple and coke are trademarks despite refering to common items.

 

[Ronlap]

Where did this rush-to-market narrative come from? AliveCor has been developing handheld ECG products since 1990.

Indeed. I would say that Apple copied them.

 

[IIGS User]

Oh to be an in-house counsel at Apple. Job for life. Minus a soul.

Most attorneys have their soul's ritualistically removed somewhere around the beginning of the second semester of their second year of law school.

At that point, the transformation in how they think has progressed to the point of no return.

This happens to MBA candidates earlier due their lack of compassion prior to entering the program.

I majored in Sociology and spent my whole career helping people. I'm broke most of the time. It sucks keeping the thermostat low in the winter and checking everything for coupons while I see my friends who took other paths doing so well.

Wouldn't change it though. It was what I was meant to do.

 

[_Spinn_]

Well this is a good turn of events for Apple.

 

[Carnegie]

Well I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure most of the issues come down to the legislation around patents which means it’s up to the legislature to change the rules before the USPTO can do anything. So get writing to your local members and make them do something for once

They could make changes to the patent laws, yes. But there's also the issue of how existing law is implemented and interpreted by the USPTO and courts. For instance, what does it mean for an invention to be obvious (to someone of ordinary skill in the art)? Patent laws, as with so many laws, leave a great deal of gray area and thus wiggle room for implementers and courts to determine how they will work. I would, e.g., favor a more expansive interpretation of what it means to be obvious in this context such that fewer so-called inventions would be patentable.

 

[Carnegie]

Seems rather quick the speed they removed those patents. Wonder if this will put Alivecor out of business? Still they picked the fight so must accept the risks involved.

Apple filed its petitions for review with the PTAB 18 months ago. The PTAB granted those petitions and instituted reviews 12 months ago. So I wouldn't say these invalidations were all that quick. And, of course, we're far from a final decision (from either the Federal Circuit or, less likely, the Supreme Court) on this matter. AliveCor will likely appeal.

As for this putting AliveCor out of business, I don't think that's likely. Whether AliveCor's business is in trouble for other reasons I don't know. But these invalidations only really impact its ability to extract money from competitors or others, e.g. Apple. These invalidations make it more likely that they will settle all outstanding litigation with Apple.

 

[Carnegie]

They patented an oblong shape. They tried to use that to beat Samsung, and outside the US they failed miserably thst patent. Hence my comment, a bit sarcastic yes, but I‘ve learnt that in the US you seemingly can patent literally anything you like. Maybe not a wheel, but I can see an army of court cases against the Apple car.

What (I think) you're referring to was a design patent, not a utility patent. I'd agree that design patent was a little iffy, but I'd also note that it was for a little more than an oblong shape or even a rectangle with rounded corners, as many have described it.

More importantly, a design patent is very different from a utility patent. They share part of their names but the way they work and what's required to get them are quite different. I'd say a design patent is more similar to a trademark than it is to a utility patent, though the reality is it is somewhere in between.

 

[Carnegie]

The also tried to copyright "App" (the word). Because no one had used it prior.

I think you're referring to a federal trademark registration, which wouldn't seem all that unusual for something like App Store (as used for particular services). And someone else had tried to register it prior, but they abandoned it IIRC because they weren't actually using the mark in commerce. They had decided to use a different name.