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

[cmaier]

Doesn't seem like legal abuse to me. The courts have already ruled that the patent is valid - while they may be wrong, it's got to at least be a close enough question (I am unfamiliar with the prior case, so I am taking the earlier poster's word for it). And the claims seem like they might be infringed by Apple, though no way to tell without more information on exactly what apple is doing. So it seems like a patent earned fair and square on technology that no one had previously invented (because if someone had, it would have been proven by Synaptics in the earlier case - one would think they would know where to find such prior art), and which might be infringed. The patentee is not a troll, and presumably did spend R&D money to invent the thing. If we want to convince people to spend R&D money on inventions that may or may not pan out, we have to let them profit a little bit, otherwise everyone will just free ride (let someone else invent it, then copy it). If everyone free rides, no one invents anything, and we get only miniscule improvements that don't require large R&D investments.

The reason great stuff doesn't happen so often in garages anymore is that things are much more complicated now. Back when a cheap but innovative floppy disk controller could be made from Radio Shack parts, it was a different world. Nowadays the great garage stuff is software, because it can still be done cheaply. Google, Facebook, etc. are all "garage" products that disprove your point.

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 75% or more of the company OR simply close up shop awash in debt and legal papers.

 

[rolphi]

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 agree with you that garage based businesses that wish to play in the established industries of phones and personal computers would have a tough time. But I also think it is an important distinction that Apple and Microsoft were making their mark at the beginning of an industry. They were there when everyone was collectively inventing a category.

So a garage based business that completely invents a new class of device that changes the world does stand a chance even with today's established tech companies. But a garage based business that wants to take 99.9% of something that has existed for 10 years and add their magic .1% might have some trouble.

 

[tzeshan]

"352" patent for detecting the simultaneous presence of two or more fingers? that sounds equally as vague as apple's claim for Patent #7,657,849: Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image filed against HTC.

Unlocking iPhone is not multi-touch. Only one finger is needed.

 

[SandynJosh]

You can only steal others ideas for so long before it catches up with you. Steve Jobs has bragged in the past about Apple stealing others ideas.

I think he was bragging about the NEXT company at the time.

 

[distortedloop]

Different title, but the same old discussion with the same old fanboys defending Apple to the death, the same old trolls cheering Apple's troubles, and the same old patent arguments by a few who actually seem to know what they're talking about.

I should have known better than to read this one...

 

[cmaier]

Different title, but the same old discussion with the same old fanboys defending Apple to the death, the same old trolls cheering Apple's troubles, and the same old patent arguments by a few who actually seem to know what they're talking about.

I should have known better than to read this one...

Each time one or two more people learn a little bit about patent law

 

[SandynJosh]

There are so many patents, dealing with so many little slices of an idea that I can see how easy it might be for Apple and any other company, to infringe on some things and not have any clue there was a patent sitting out there somewhere that they might have, or almost did, infringe upon.

It's like sneezing and farting at the same time. "Honestly, Your Honor, I had no intention to do that."

 

[cmaier]

There are so many patents, dealing with so many little slices of an idea that I can see how easy it might be for Apple and any other company, to infringe on some things and not have any clue there was a patent sitting out there somewhere that they might have, or almost did, infringe upon.

It's like sneezing and farting at the same time. "Honestly, Your Honor, I had no intention to do that."

In all the years I worked at AMD designing microprocessors I never once worried about anyone else's patents. I suspect that's generally the way it goes unless the company has been specifically warned by someone.

 

[SandynJosh]

Each time one or two more people learn a little bit about patent law

I'm sure you're right... unfortunately they usually lack any retention from one time to the next so the learning is for naught.

Seriously, I once had someone in my department that needed to retaught how to use the fax machine every Monday morning.

 

[DreamcastDC]

The reason you don't see Elan suing HTC or Google it's because they use multitouch panels from Synaptics and they are licensing the right to use the tech from Elan. And there patent is vaild, since the judge rule in there favor when they sued Synaptics over the same patent.

 

[rjohnstone]

Doesn't seem like legal abuse to me. The courts have already ruled that the patent is valid - while they may be wrong, it's got to at least be a close enough question (I am unfamiliar with the prior case, so I am taking the earlier poster's word for it). And the claims seem like they might be infringed by Apple, though no way to tell without more information on exactly what apple is doing. So it seems like a patent earned fair and square on technology that no one had previously invented (because if someone had, it would have been proven by Synaptics in the earlier case - one would think they would know where to find such prior art), and which might be infringed. The patentee is not a troll, and presumably did spend R&D money to invent the thing. If we want to convince people to spend R&D money on inventions that may or may not pan out, we have to let them profit a little bit, otherwise everyone will just free ride (let someone else invent it, then copy it). If everyone free rides, no one invents anything, and we get only miniscule improvements that don't require large R&D investments.

I found more details regarding the "352 patent" and Syntaptics.
The outcome of the initial suit was a summary judgment in Elan's favor.
The end result was a cross licensing deal.

Source

Hsinchu, Taiwan –Elan Microelectronics Corporation announced that the United States District Court in California, at the request of Elan and Synaptics, Inc., has dismissed both pending patent lawsuits between Elan and Synaptics. Elan and Synaptics has filed a motion asking that the related appeal of a district court order currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also be dismissed.

On Oct. 20, 2008 Elan and Synaptics agreed to settle the patent disputes, which involved touchpad input devices for computers and handheld devices. The terms of the settlement are confidential, but both companies are now cross-licensed to all of the patents asserted in the lawsuits. In addition, Synaptics agreed not to assert any other claims it may have had against Elan's products. The license and agreement not to sue extend to purchasers, re-sellers and customers for Elan's products. Regarding the cross-licensed fee, we may see a fruitful operating income in our financial statement

"We are very pleased to be able to put this dispute behind us," said Elan Chairman I.H. Yeh. "This agreement recognizes the importance of Elan's technology, and allows us to focus our attention on providing our customers with best possible touchpad solutions, while removing uncertainty from the marketplace," Yeh continued.

The settlement comes at a time when multi-finger capabilities of the type claimed in Elan's '352 patent, such as using two fingers to zoom in or out of a document, to rotate a document or for other commands, is becoming much more prevalent. "With this settlement we have resolved the use of the '352 patent by the market leader in laptop touchpads," Yeh stated. "Elan intends to continue its efforts to ensure that others in the market are not using this technology without a license.."

The legal proceedings began on March 10, 2006 when Elantech Devices Corp., then a wholly-owned subsidiary of Elan, filed suit against Synaptics in U.S. federal court in San Francisco, claiming that Synaptics' touchpads with the capability of detecting multiple fingers infringed Elan's U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352. (On October 1, 2008 Elantech was finally merged into Elan). Synaptics responded by alleging that Elan's touchpad products infringed four of its patents and on December 21, 2007 Synaptics initiated a second lawsuit alleging infringement of a fifth patent. The Settlement comes after the court granted Elan summary judgment that certain Synaptics touchpads infringed the '352 patent and issued an order enjoining Synaptics from selling those products in the United States.

 

[DreamcastDC]

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

They are not going after Google because Synaptics has a cross-licensing deal with Elan Microelectronics.

 

[Cleverboy]

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.

I like Google's patent search system. Gives all the FIGs and presents them nicely.

Elan Microelectronics - Multitouch Patent - U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=IAkYAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,825,352

Apple Computer - Multitouch Patent - U.S. Patent Application 10/840,862
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=lWajAAAAEBAJ&dq=10/840862

Its interesting that Apple's is only an application at this point.

~ CB

 

[daxomni]

Each time one or two more people learn a little bit about patent law

And maybe a lawyer or two learns a little bit about alternative views of ethics and morality beyond the precedent and process is everything confines of the courtroom.

 

[Liquorpuki]

And maybe a lawyer or two learns a little bit about alternative views of ethics and morality beyond the precedent and process is everything confines of the courtroom.

What alternative views are you referring to?

 

[daxomni]

What alternative views are you referring to?

Namely that "patent abuse" can include immoral or unethical actions or motives in addition to direct flouting of legal precedent and procedures. Our moral compass has slowly become fixated on what is legal and not what is right or in the interest of our society as a whole. I know there is a long and sordid history of companies trying to game the system and bully each other at the expense of consumers, but that doesn't really change anything in my view. If the patent system is no longer actively promoting innovation from all legitimate sources then it has failed to uphold its purpose and needs to be revisited. It is my concern that we are on a sustained trajectory toward less and less innovation due to convoluted legal constraints that have slowly been perverted as companies have learned how to (legally) abuse the system.

 

[cmaier]

And maybe a lawyer or two learns a little bit about alternative views of ethics and morality beyond the precedent and process is everything confines of the courtroom.

I am not sure what point you are making. I expressly avoid making any kind of ethical or moral pronouncements and I stick to explaining the laws as they currently read and the reasons they currently read that way. Further, I'm not sure how morals or ethics play into the patent laws - such laws exist only for the express purpose (stated in the constitution) of advancing the technological arts, and not to serve any particular belief system.

 

[cmaier]

Namely that "patent abuse" can include immoral or unethical actions or motives in addition to direct flouting of legal precedent and procedures. Our moral compass has slowly become fixated on what is legal and not what is right or in the interest of our society as a whole. I know there is a long and sordid history of companies trying to game the system and bully each other at the expense of consumers, but that doesn't really change anything in my view. If the patent system is no longer actively promoting innovation from all legitimate sources then it has failed to uphold its purpose and needs to be revisited. It is my concern that we are on a sustained trajectory toward less and less innovation due to convoluted legal constraints that have slowly been perverted as companies have learned how to (legally) abuse the system.

But you merely state in a conclusory manner that such things are happening, without citing any evidence. The mere fact that a lawsuit or 10 lawsuits are filed doesn't prove that there is less and less innovation. More progress has occurred in the last two hundred years, during which we've had essentially the same patent system, than in the thousands of years before. More progress has happened in the last 50 years than in the 150 years before. And more progress has happened in the last 10 years than in the 40 years before.

 

[BobVB]

Further, I'm not sure how morals or ethics play into the patent laws - such laws exist only for the express purpose (stated in the constitution) of advancing the technological arts, and not to serve any particular belief system.

But that's just it - allowing the obvious to be patented doesn't advance them, it inhibits them. Yes, a capacitance sensing way to make a touch pad - definitely an patentable idea. But the mere idea of putting a bunch of them in an xy grid to allow sensing of multiple touches? No, that's intuitively obvious, totally derivative of there being capacitance sensor to begin with. You want to patent a particular sensor you've designed that does that, fine. You want to say you can get a cut of anyone who actually designs any sensor that does something kinda like this, that a sign of a broken system that is no longer fulfilling its constitutional mandate.

 

[DaveGee]

The reason great stuff doesn't happen so often in garages anymore is that things are much more complicated now. Back when a cheap but innovative floppy disk controller could be made from Radio Shack parts, it was a different world. Nowadays the great garage stuff is software, because it can still be done cheaply. Google, Facebook, etc. are all "garage" products that disprove your point.

I agree with you that garage based businesses that wish to play in the established industries of phones and personal computers would have a tough time. But I also think it is an important distinction that Apple and Microsoft were making their mark at the beginning of an industry. They were there when everyone was collectively inventing a category.

So a garage based business that completely invents a new class of device that changes the world does stand a chance even with today's established tech companies. But a garage based business that wants to take 99.9% of something that has existed for 10 years and add their magic .1% might have some trouble.

Yes... too true... having grown in the same time when PC industry grew up I guess I have a somewhat jaded eye on the way things have matured... However, being a grownup when the web began exploding I saw more clearly how startups COULD happen again... however being a hardware geek I still miss the idea of something 'crazy new' hitting us square in the face from outta know where. Those days really ARE a historic memory... and just as likely in another 10 or so years the idea that a crazy new 'web technology' being developed by a rag tag group of kids will be just as unlikely.

By that time I'd imagine the nanotech field should be starting to really come into it's own... and while cool-ideas won't be found in garages or basements workshops, instead they'll likely flow out of university labs all over the world... it certainly makes for exciting times... and I guess when I see this back and forth suing for patented ideas that are all too often semi-questionable in the first place. Let's face it, quite a number of the patents today are awarded for 'inventions' that are anything but...

I just hope I'm still around to watch it all unfold... Especially the nanotech boom, I've been quietly following it's progression for over 10 years now! Unfortunately, and for reasons I'd just as soon not discuss... the chances of me being around that long is not very good I'm afraid.. BUT! I've come to DEMAND that ANYTHING is possible in my life and so far it's working quite well for me!

 

[cmaier]

But that's just it - allowing the obvious to be patented doesn't advance them, it inhibits them.

But that is addressed by the law, not by ethics or morals. The law does not permit that which would have been obvious at the time the patent was filed to be patented. And the legal process is all about determining whether or not the USPTO correctly determined this. In this case, a court has already ruled that this was not obvious.

Yes, a capacitance sensing way to make a touch pad - definitely an patentable idea. But the mere idea of putting a bunch of them in an xy grid to allow sensing of multiple touches? No, that's intuitively obvious, totally derivative of there being capacitance sensor to begin with. You want to patent a particular sensor you've designed that does that, fine. You want to say you can get a cut of anyone who actually designs any sensor that does something kinda like this, that a sign of a broken system that is no longer fulfilling its constitutional mandate.

If it was so obvious at the time Elan patented it (and, by the way, your description does not correctly state what Elan patented), how come not a single person, anywhere in the world, did it or wrote about it prior to Elan? How come there is no combination of documents that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent filing would have combined so as to reach the Elan result? A court has already ruled that no such prior art exists, and you can bet Synaptics was looking pretty hard to find such art.

Everything seems obvious in hindsight, and everything seems obvious to non-engineers who are not used to reading patent claims and who don't actually understand the technology being described.

 

[RnSK]

I like this, guy And, I like this guy

If it was so obvious at the time Elan patented it (and, by the way, your description does not correctly state what Elan patented), how come not a single person, anywhere in the world, did it or wrote about it prior to Elan?

Everything seems obvious in hindsight, and everything seems obvious to non-engineers who are not used to reading patent claims and who don't actually understand the technology being described.

I really think that if most folks that scream about this on the Internet actually took 3 minutes to just switch in the company in whatever patent lawsuit they are pissing and moaning about a lot less server space would be used on the Internet

 

[BobVB]

But that is addressed by the law, not by ethics or morals. The law does not permit that which would have been obvious at the time the patent was filed to be patented. And the legal process is all about determining whether or not the USPTO correctly determined this. In this case, a court has already ruled that this was not obvious.

How could putting a documented sensor in an array to gives multiple data collection opportunities not be considered obvious?

If it was so obvious at the time Elan patented it (and, by the way, your description does not correctly state what Elan patented)

Please, someone posted the link to the patent. Its as vague as it can be, even using question marks to hedge their figures. Shoot if that's a valid patent then they shot themselves in the foot when they said it would disregard any contact greater than 5 cm away - if Apple doesn't have that criteria then it doesn't relate to this patent - they can't be vague and specific at the same time as it suits their purposes.

how come not a single person, anywhere in the world, did it or wrote about it prior to Elan?

Probably because at that time a sensor array like that didn't even exist. Again, if they created such a sensor this would be different for that particular sensor - they are talking about a hypothetical thing at the time... Again, patenting the obvious shouldn't be allowed. Having a sensor and then suggested it would be neat to have a bunch of that sensor in a grid for more data collection possibilities is intuitively obvious to any but the brain dead.

A court has already ruled that no such prior art exists, and you can bet Synaptics was looking pretty hard to find such art.

Who cares? There is no indication they even had the 'art' to begin with - they were just engaging in intuitively obvious 'what iffing' that anyone could have done.

Everything seems obvious in hindsight, and everything seems obvious to non-engineers who are not used to reading patent claims and who don't actually understand the technology being described.

Ok, please - what are they doing here other than taking long winded ways of saying they are going to use a sensor data array to discern multiple discrete data events a totally obvious and natural evolution from knowing there is a single sensor that can do so with a single data event? "I'm going to scan an X Y grid looking for discrete maxima and act differently according to the number I find" - again, no more inventive than patenting using a laser pointer to exercise the cat.

 

[cmaier]

I'm not sure how to answer this diatribe other than the following:

1) you need to pay attention to the claims
2) the only scientific technique we have to determine whether something would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art in the past is to compare the supposed invention to the state of the art at the time. If the differences are insubstantial, it's obvious. The state of the art at the time can be determined by looking at all the publications and products in the world at that time. In court, this is the analysis that took place. It seems a pretty good system to me - I'm not sure how we can do better.

All you've done is repeatedly declare that it's obvious, and state your incredulity that it could be found not so. What facts do you have to support your conclusion? If it was so obvious, it would have been done! But it wasn't.

How could putting a documented sensor in an array to gives multiple data collection opportunities not be considered obvious?

If it was so obvious at the time Elan patented it (and, by the way, your description does not correctly state what Elan patented)

Please, someone posted the link to the patent. Its as vague as it can be, even using question marks to hedge their figures. Shoot if that's a valid patent then they shot themselves in the foot when they said it would disregard any contact greater than 5 cm away - if Apple doesn't have that criteria then it doesn't relate to this patent - they can't be vague and specific at the same time as it suits their purposes.

how come not a single person, anywhere in the world, did it or wrote about it prior to Elan?

Probably because at that time a sensor array like that didn't even exist. Again, if they created such a sensor this would be different for that particular sensor - they are talking about a hypothetical thing at the time... Again, patenting the obvious shouldn't be allowed. Having a sensor and then suggested it would be neat to have a bunch of that sensor in a grid for more data collection possibilities is intuitively obvious to any but the brain dead.

A court has already ruled that no such prior art exists, and you can bet Synaptics was looking pretty hard to find such art.

Who cares? There is no indication they even had the 'art' to begin with - they were just engaging in intuitively obvious 'what iffing' that anyone could have done.

Everything seems obvious in hindsight, and everything seems obvious to non-engineers who are not used to reading patent claims and who don't actually understand the technology being described.

Ok, please - what are they doing here other than taking long winded ways of saying they are going to use a sensor data array to discern multiple discrete data events a totally obvious and natural evolution from knowing there is a single sensor that can do so with a single data event? "I'm going to scan an X Y grid looking for discrete maxima and act differently according to the number I find" - again, no more inventive than patenting using a laser pointer to exercise the cat.

 

[BobVB]

I'm not sure how to answer this diatribe other than the following:

1) you need to pay attention to the claims

Please what have I missed?


2) the only scientific technique we have to determine whether something would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art in the past is to compare the supposed invention to the state of the art at the time. If the differences are insubstantial, it's obvious.

And hypothesizing putting a single sensor in an xy array of multiple sensors is just that.

The state of the art at the time can be determined by looking at all the publications and products in the world at that time. In court, this is the analysis that took place. It seems a pretty good system to me - I'm not sure how we can do better.

Automatically exclude things that are obvious extensions of existing technology

All you've done is repeatedly declare that it's obvious, and state your incredulity that it could be found not so. What facts do you have to support your conclusion?[/b]

Common sense - if something exists suggesting putting that something in an xy array to make it do what it does multiple times is obvious, its been done before with non-capacitive sensors such as keyboards, that any and all sensors would reasonably have such future application is not inventive, particularly not in each individual case of type of sensor.

If it was so obvious, it would have been done! But it wasn't.
We have no indication that it was 'done' even with this patent - this is not about having actually produced a new type of technology, i.e. a multiple sensor grid, it is about what you would do with one if you had it. And what's being done is, again, intuitively obvious and should never be patentable.