Elan Microelectronics Turns to U.S. International Trade Commission in Multi-Touch Patent Dispute With Apple

[BobVB]

The number of fingers doesn't matter as long as is capable of detecting at least two. "Comprising" is non-limiting, so if it detects three or five fingers it might still infringe.

As for minima/maxima, you have to look at the rest of the patent to figure out what that would mean to a person having ordinary skill in the art. It seems to refer to a signal that varies from 0 (no touch) to some large value (solid touch), with a minima being a small value and a maxima being a large value.

But that's just it - that description implies they are detecting differences between the fingers, a primary, and a secondary of a different qualitative nature. Even with the 3rd party apps that unlock the various Apple multitouch properties all the fingers are the same - one might be doing something different than the other(s) but there is no 'maxima' fingers as opposed to 'minima' ones, just presses which are in themselves all equal - only what action they may be taken is different.

If that is the crux of their patent I would say that apple is not currently infringing on it - a press is just a press on all the apple products I have.

 

[fox10078]

Why aren't they also going after google? Do they not care because androids free? Since android has multitouch too, correct?

 

[cmaier]

Elan won a patent suit again Synaptics in 2008 for infringing the same patent.
So the courts have already affirmed that the patent is valid.
Elan's lawyers need to only prove infringement by Apple.

Apple does get its own chance to invalidate.

 

[cmaier]

But that's just it - that description implies they are detecting differences between the fingers, a primary, and a secondary of a different qualitative nature. Even with the 3rd party apps that unlock the various Apple multitouch properties all the fingers are the same - one might be doing something different than the other(s) but there is no 'maxima' fingers as opposed to 'minima' ones, just presses which are in themselves all equal - only what action they may be taken is different.

If that is the crux of their patent I would say that apple is not currently infringing on it - a press is just a press on all the apple products I have.

You are incorrectly interpreting maxima. Each finger provides a signal maxima. There is no maxima finger.

 

[Hurda]

Why aren't they also going after google? Do they not care because androids free? Since android has multitouch too, correct?

Who says that they don't have an agreement?

 

[Durendal]

I guess Elan can't make any money by building some of the crappiest power supplies known to man, so they're using patent suits. Nice.

Seriously, the shop I work for has sold a bunch of Shuttle PCs. You know how many 1-2 year old Shuttles are coming back with bulging caps in the PSU and bulging caps on the logic board, too? Friggin' Elanpower. Cheap, worthless garbage.

 

[BobVB]

You are incorrectly interpreting maxima. Each finger provides a signal maxima. There is no maxima finger.

Ah I see, so the patentable 'crux' is the very vague first words 'means for scanning the touch sensor' since the maxima minima discussion is just about finding a place with a finger and a space without a finger and then another place with a finger. Just saying you would have to find a way to detect where fingers are pressed on the touch sensor is so obvious that can't be the basis of a legitimate patent.

So I wonder how they define their 'scanning' of the touch matrix that Apple is infringing on. if its a simple grid serial search that again is far too obvious to be patentable.

And if there really isn't more than this then the obvious solution would be to invert your range and make 'a minima' mean a finger with the touch pad a default 'maxima'.

If you are correct then this would be a good illustration of how things like 'laser pens used to tease cats' and 'you have to figure out where the fingers are' can get inappropriately patented.

 

[cmaier]

Ah I see, so the patentable 'crux' is the very vague first words 'means for scanning the touch sensor' since the maxima minima discussion is just about finding a place with a finger and a space without a finger and then another place with a finger. Just saying you would have to find a way to detect where fingers are pressed on the touch sensor is so obvious that can't be the basis of a legitimate patent.

So I wonder how they define their 'scanning' of the touch matrix that Apple is infringing on. if its a simple grid serial search that again is far too obvious to be patentable.

And if there really isn't more than this then the obvious solution would be to invert your range and make 'a minima' mean a finger with the touch pad a default 'maxima'.

If you are correct then this would be a good illustration of how things like 'laser pens used to tease cats' and 'you have to figure out where the fingers are' can get inappropriately patented.

Since these are "means" claims, it's a little tougher to interpret them as you need to analyze the entire specification to discern what means are being claimed. The claims are limited to the particular examples/circuits described in the patent document (and any other insubstantial variations of those).

Not clear to me that the scanning limitation requires any particular sequence or order of scanning.

 

[BobVB]

. The claims are limited to the particular examples/circuits described in the patent document.

Ah so this pretty generic description of how you would determine where touches existed were about a particular type of touch sensor - some tech that could actually be unique and patentable?

Well that's different - if Apple is using their touch sensor then they should play, but if it is just a attempt to 'state the obvious' for any kind of touch sensor anyone could develop it again shouldn't be patentable.

 

[Vulpinemac]

In the US it is the first to invent, not first to patent, that matters.

While it may no longer be true, it used to be that the first to the patent office was the one who got the patent. One gentleman invented a method of sending voice over electrical wires that was clear, audible and effective over a significant distance. He took it to the patent office, only to find out Alexander Graham Bell had beaten him there by some 2 minutes.

 

[kdarling]

Apple's main multi-touch screen patent uses gradients to determine multiple touches.

1) They scan across each line and determine the capacitive values from 0-255.

2) From the values, they throw out noise, block out base touch area patches, build touch gradients on the patches, and then calculate the value center of each patch gradient.

3) The centers of the areas are returned as touches.

 

[cmaier]

While it may no longer be true, it used to be that the first to the patent office was the one who got the patent. One gentleman invented a method of sending voice over electrical wires that was clear, audible and effective over a significant distance. He took it to the patent office, only to find out Alexander Graham Bell had beaten him there by some 2 minutes.

You are incorrect. The rule has always been first to invent. In Bell's case, the patent office instituted an interference proceeding to determine who had invented first, and it was determined (rightly or wrongly) that Bell beat Gray to the invention.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy

 

[Vulpinemac]

You are incorrect. The rule has always been first to invent. In Bell's case, the patent office instituted an interference proceeding to determine who had invented first, and it was determined (rightly or wrongly) that Bell beat Gray to the invention.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy

Ah. My thanks. I was working from incorrect data.

 

[cmaier]

Apple's main multi-touch screen patent uses gradients to determine multiple touches.

1) They scan across each line and determine the capacitive values from 0-255.

2) From the values, they build touch gradients, throw out noise, determine base touch areas and then calculate the max/min center of the areas.

3) The centers of the areas are returned as touches.

If these weren't means/function claims, that would probably infringe. But given that these are means claims, a lot of specific gunk is probably required (see the figures in the patent) that might not be there in Apple's method, particularly if they rely on gradiants - I am pretty sure, for example, that the Elan "maxima" must refer to the capacitance, not the derivative of the capacitance.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

[source: Patent ]

Except that this isn't how Apple's multitouch system works at all. It doesn't rely on detection of 'the first maxima' more ANY 'maxima' touching the surface. You can touch with 1-5 fingers, it will detect them simultaneously.

Patent attorney fail.

Excellent observational post.

 

[cmaier]

Excellent observational post.

No it's not.

 

[nzsilverfox]

Microsoft is behind this ...

I bet you that Microsoft is behind this

 

[joaoferro37]

That might be true; however, it may also be that Apple has indeed infringed upon another patent. Apple certainly appears and acts as if Steve can walk on water and hubris has crept in: Apple cannot just do whatever it wants. Apple wants to protect its technology and has never been shy about lawsuits. It is about time they faced the same tactics.

It is not only who owns the patent but also enough $$ to protect one's interest.

Look at this site
http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/The_Story.php

Also OWC was making iDVD enabler for external DVD drives back in 2002, guess what!!

http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/computer-software/235394-1.html

 

[DaveGee]

Almost no cases ever make it to the jury - just like in other areas of the law, in the U.S., at least, almost all cases settle before a jury verdict. Of the cases that go all the way, if the plaintiff and defendant are both industry competitors (i.e.: the plaintiff is not a patent troll), then if the plaintiff wins, he is highly likely to get an injunction.

So almost EVERY case like this gets settled out of court prior to a judge handed down an injunction...

Update: in 2005, 19% of cases that made it to the end resulted in injunctions. That seems like a lot to me.

Of the SMALL amount that do make it to court only 19% end in an injunction.

Most get settled prior to a ruling... of those who don't come to a settlement 81% don't get an injunction placed on them.

Okay so... then you agree with what I said after all...

"It's on a VERY rare occasion when a lawsuit actually goes out and BLOCKS the import of goods..."

Glad you came to see it my way...

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

There's something ironic about Apple getting sued for a patent infringement on an item (multi-touch) that they themselves have been threatening to sue OTHER companies for using on their products. Apple is only getting as they give and they deserve every bit of it, IMO for being control freaks and greed mongers. Patents and copyright cases are out of control (particularly onerous are software patents) so until reasonable laws are put into place only to protect precise exact methods of doing something (i.e. exact code or exact circuits instead of just vague "ideas" of something which is total absurdity since there are more than a few ways to skin a cat), this nonsense will continue indefinitely.

 

[cmaier]

So almost EVERY case like this gets settled out of court prior to a judge handed down an injunction...



Of the SMALL amount that do make it to court only 19% end in an injunction.

Most get settled prior to a ruling... of those who don't come to a settlement 81% don't get an injunction placed on them.

Okay so... then you agree with what I said after all...

"It's on a VERY rare occasion when a lawsuit actually goes out and BLOCKS the import of goods..."

Glad you came to see it my way...

About 80% of cases are settled. Of the remaining, 19% (in 2005) got injunctions, but, to be fair, not every plaintiff asks for an injunction, so the percentage of plaintiffs who asked for injunctions and got injunctions is probably higher.

But this is an ITC case, not a court case, and the numbers are doubtless quite different (since money damages are not a possible outcome). I don't know the numbers for ITC cases.

I do know that in a case like this, where plaintiff is not a troll, the likelihood of receiving an injunction is much higher than the numbers I cited (since many patent cases are troll cases, and trolls are almost never able to get injunctions anymore).

I do agree that it is most likely that there will be some sort of settlement. if there is not, and if Apple is found to infringe, an injunction is likely. I do not know if it is likely they will be found to infringe. Given that the patents have been sued on before, invalidity is unlikely.

 

[captain kaos]

Good, apples getting a taste of its own high court rulings!

 

[EricBrian]

I wonder, how long are patents valid?

 

[cmaier]

I wonder, how long are patents valid?

20 years from the date of filing. It used to be 17 year from the date of issuance.

 

[DaveGee]

I do agree that it is most likely that there will be some sort of settlement. if there is not, and if Apple is found to infringe, an injunction is likely. I do not know if it is likely they will be found to infringe. Given that the patents have been sued on before, invalidity is unlikely.

Agreed on all points.. my main point is the chances are quite high that Apple would either make a settlement quickly (if they WERE caught with their hand in another companies cookie jar) or would have the legal team necessary to obtain a verdict in their favor... and if after their defense a legal victory doesn't seem certain then an 11th hour settlement is likely to be the final outcome. These types of issues are nothing more than 'mild annoyances' and are fully expected to happen. Notice how the street doesn't even register a blip anymore (in MOST cases) when company X becomes the target of patent complaint by company Y. The street WILL eventually react at such a time when things don't go 'as they usually do'.

I'm just very down on the entire process that has come into being... It's an unfair barrier to entry for any garage based business trying to make THIER mark on the world. I've said this before and I'll say it again...

If Apple or Microsoft had to battle this level of legal abuse when THEY started neither would have seen the light of day.

I also firmly believe THIS is exactly how the ESTABLISHED tech firms WANT IT. This back and forth suing they do to each other is mostly posturing and usually ends in a mutually agreeable 'patent sharing agreement' that benefit each party to one degree or another and as for the legal expense? It's simply a part of doing business and factored into each product they sell.

Unfortunately todays 'garage based startups' don't have such luxuries... So, if they become a target of a patent related legal challenge they either find a 'savior' that will buy them out cheap, provide legal support, continue product development and reap all the profits _or_ find a savior VC firm that will infuse them with the cash needed to properly defend themselves at the cost of giving away 75% or more of the company OR simply close up shop awash in debt and legal papers.