One of Apple’s key iPhone patents has been given a non-final rejection in the still-dragging-on Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit.
The reason? According to a new report, it should never have been granted in the first place, due to an issue with prior art and apparent “obviousness.”
Among all the dense patent-ese is the fact that Apple is therefore “not entitled to benefit of the filing date” of its original design patent 618,677.
This isn’t a final verdict (what about this case is final?), but it certainly doesn’t sound good for Apple. As FOSS Patents explains:
“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).'”
Apple has already had the original $1 billion damages settlement it was awarded against Samsung whittled down to $584 million. Recently, Samsung was denied an appeal regarding $400 million of this remaining sum, and it is now likely to wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court since neither side wants to let go.
We don’t yet know how this latest decision will affect the ruling given there, but what I do know is that this whole headache-inducing issue does make you wonder exactly what the U.S. Patents and Trademark Office is actually for. If a company like Samsung with sufficiently deep pockets can keep battling until USPTO eventually decides that maybe its patents should never have been awarded in the first place, what’s the point?
At any rate, it seems like Samsung’s lawyers have been reading their fair share of George Orwell: “The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous.”
Hey, at least Apple is winning where it counts!
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
7 responses to “One of Apple’s key iPhone design patents is no longer protected”
Fuck that Apple rather i say AppHole
So basicly Samsung is like ,ok might as well go all the way and settle this once and for all (the patent office srupidity of giving patent to stuff that should never have received a patent in the first place.otherwise I would go and patent all the alphabet of every language of the planet and file lawsuit for no better reason then making 1$ more then 1 trillion
it actually says both the 4.7″ & 5″ feature an 8MP camera, while only the 5.5″ Plus gets 12MP. All 3 models come with a 1080p display, A9 processor
Obviousness? Sure, 7-8 years later after seeing hundreds of like-designed smartphones. That design was not obvious when the original art was created.
No, it wasn’t obvious to the poorly-trained staffer who failed to properly vet the application. The court found that prior art existed, ergo fixing USPTO goofs in a very slow and expensive fashion. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
No, it wasn’t obvious before the original art was created – the original art being the LG Prada. That’s why the patent was invalidated. Apple didn’t create the original art. In fact. three different companies, LG (Prada), Samsung (F700) and Apple (iPhone) arrived at very similar designs at roughly the same time. That alone proves the obviousness.
Too many patents are granted that never should be, and Apple has been one of many beneficiaries. Just a shame it takes so much work and money to have bad patents struck down.
I’m no fan of Samsung, but this nonsense has gotten out of hand in general.