USPTO to void one of Apples main Patents in Samsung case.

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by apolloa, Aug 17, 2015.

  1. apolloa macrumors G4

    Oct 21, 2008
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    Didn't know where else to post this, but one of the main patents that Apple successfully sued Samsung on is to be void by UPSTO. I was wondering if any tax payers dollars have now been wasted?

    Interesting things are still happening from time to time in connection with the generally much less interesting patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. Three months after the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated $380 million in damages, thus necessitating a third trial in the first California case between these parties, but upheld approximately $547 million in mostly design patent-related damages, it looks like one of the patents underlying that damages claim should never have been granted in the first place.

    On August 5, 2015, the Central Reexamination Division of the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a non-final action in the reexamination (requested anonymously, by Samsung in all likelihood, in mid-2013) of U.S. Design Patent No. 618,677, an iPhone-related design patent. While technically non-final, the odds are long against Apple getting this patent, shortly referred to as "D'677" in the Samsung litigation, upheld. I'm so very skeptical because the USPTO has taken a long time since the filing of the reexamination requests to issue this Office action and, which is far more meaningful, it has determined that this design patent's single claim "stands twice rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) [obviousness], rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)/102(e) [obviousness in connection with a published patent application], and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)."

    The problem the D'677 patent faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for now) that this patent "is not entitled to benefit of the filing date" of two previous Apple design patent applications because the design at issue was not disclosed in those earlier applications. As a result, certain prior art is eligible now, and against the background of that additional prior art, the USPTO believes the patent shouldn't have been granted.

    The first rejection for obviousness is based on the combination of U.S. Design Patent No. D546,313 (obtained by LG, another Korean device maker) with either this Sharp patent application or some Japanese design patent application (JPD1235888).

    The second rejection cites another Japanese design patent, JPD1204221, in combination with various other prior art, including among others a Samsung design patent (U.S. Design Patent No. D546,313).

    The third rejection for obviousness combines one of Apple's own design patents, U.S. Design Patent No. D602,014 with other prior art.

    Yet another Apple design patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D618,204, forms the basis of the fourth rejection.

    The USPTO's holdings and findings call into question the legitimacy of Apple's intent to collect roughly half a billion dollars in design patent damages from Samsung...................
  2. ronntaylor macrumors regular


    Jan 16, 2004
    Flushing/Queens, New York
    The above is taken from where Mr. Mueller often stresses that an initial rejection -- while highly likely to be upheld -- is not a final rejection. In fact, even the so-called final rejection isn't even close to final as Apple can (and probably will) take it to federal court. And even then, Apple could petition the U. S. Supreme Court for a final review.

    This patent shouldn't have been granted and illustrates how dysfunctional the U. S. patent system is with large players like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. gaming the system.

Share This Page