Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Key Claim of Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Used Against Samsung Confirmed

Apple's "rubber banding" patent (U.S. No. 7,469,381) has been under heavy scrutiny in recent months, with a number of claims found invalid in two different rulings.

The patent, which pertains to the ability for content displayed on iOS devices to "bounce back" when a user scrolls to the top or the bottom of a page, is significant because it is one that was successfully used by Apple against Samsung in the ongoing legal dispute that saw Apple awarded with more than a billion dollars.

According to FOSS Patents, Apple has scored a major victory in regards to the '381 patent, having just received notice that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will issue a reexamination certificate that confirms the formerly invalidated claim 19, which was the portion of the patent used against Samsung. In April, three other claims were also confirmed.

reexamination
As a result of this new reexamination certificate, claim 19 will enjoy an enhanced presumption of validity against the invalidity theories the patent office evaluated. Instead of invalidation in mid–2017 or later, this patent has now been confirmed in mid–2013.

Apple would presumably have liked to salvage even more claims than the seven claims the patent office is now going to confirm, but claim 19 is the one that matters in the dispute with Samsung, and it’s now stronger than ever.
Samsung has, at multiple points in time, attempted to have the rubber banding patent declared invalid and has also attempted to use the question of the patent’s validity as a reason to delay the November trial that will redetermine a portion of the damages that Samsung must pay to Apple after the original $1 billion ruling was partially thrown out due to jury error.

With the new reexamination certificate, it is unlikely that Samsung will be able to delay or avoid the November trial that will levy additional damages against the company.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

11 months ago
this really is, one of the many things Apple did to make the iphone in 2007 easier to use for humans; one of the many things Samsung, er Google knew was patented and copied anyway. All the babble about how in the hell can someone patent this or that, well they did, and so do many many many other companies. Its an implementation method, that, by the way, worked, and worked very well.

Anyway, believe what you want, but I personally think this is one of the major things apple worked out in that first touch screen UI of a mobile phone OS that was a pivoting factor of intuitive design that help propel it to the success that not only Apple, but all the others are enjoying now.
Rating: 22 Positives
11 months ago

I cannot stand this stuff.

Why in the world is this patented?

Apple killing innovation, one patent at a time.


If you were the person / entity that created the rubber-banding effect, I am sure you would do what you can in your power to prevent your competitors from ripping it off... no?

If not, your company wouldn't last a minute in today's world. Patents are not killing innovation. Instead of copying Apple, Samsung could have come up with something comparable for their own devices. That's lack of innovation on Samsung's part - not related to patents whatsoever, IMO.

All of these "small things" that Apple has patented is what makes their phones and user interface so great. They have a right to protect what their hard work (and R&D dollars) created.
Rating: 18 Positives
11 months ago
IMHO, the rubber-banding was one of the most important behaviors of the iOS UI. The behavior shows something fundamental to our biology -- all parts have a viscoelastic behavior with each other. You can see this behavior if you pull on your earlobe; you can see the same behavior if you squeeze on your earlobe. Such nonlinear behaviors are intuitively obvious in the physical world; they make a huge amount of behavior to use for mobile devices (and, now, in OS X). See my follow-up message (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=17421231&postcount=48) for info about the science and liberal arts behind Apple's design.
Rating: 16 Positives
11 months ago

Yeah, I mean, iOS7 didn't even copy Android and Windows 8 at all.


Do you even know what a patent is?
Rating: 12 Positives
11 months ago

Wow, Apple is protecting its "innovation".


If it's so not an innovation, why didn't anyone else think of it first, and if it's an innovation without value, why did Samsung copy it as soon as Apple did it?

Not asking you about what Apple copied, or who is good and who is bad, or what company is better. Just very simply, answer the questions above.

It's innovation and Apple has a right to protect it and profit off it for a specified period of time. After that, patents fall off and it belongs to the ages. This mechanism isn't nearly as broken these days as copyright, which can currently be extended into perpetuity.
Rating: 12 Positives
11 months ago
Suck it samsung!:D:apple:
Rating: 10 Positives
11 months ago
I cannot stand this stuff.

Why in the world is this patented?

Apple killing innovation, one patent at a time.
Rating: 7 Positives
11 months ago
Germany has it right with software patents. I don't have a lot of hope for the US, but maybe someday we'll see the light and realize these patents kill innovation instead of protecting it.
Rating: 7 Positives
11 months ago

Patents were created to encourage significant investment in research development, instead it's being used on something insignificant, and its true purpose is to avoid having to innovate, using the weaknesses in the implementation of patent laws to sue your competitors.

You're taking a meaningless, willfully ignorant and narrow view, which is "the law is the law and Apple deserves its protection".


Totally wrong. What you _claim_ is Mike's view ("the law is the law and Apple deserves its protection") is _exactly_ what he didn't say. His argument is exactly right: If "Rubber Banding" was so insignificant, why did Samsung copy it? And seriously, how stupid is it to claim that Apple hasn't made significant investment in research and development creating iOS?


People are dying in the world and these two companies spend millions protecting bouncy and rounded things.

Does Apple really think that people buy their products because the view bounces back at the end of the scroll?

I still believe Apple feels there customers are vapid and ignorant if the thing that drives them to buy an iPhone is the roundness of buttons or cute visual UI cues, or that customer cannot distinguish the difference between a Samsung or Apple because of it.

Neither of these are incredibly innovative features, hence why it can be repeated about a million times by a million people. I am tired of companies protecting the trivial and obvious.

Regardless of the outcome, both companies better donate millions to charity after this to shun the stink and relative vapidness of this lawsuit.


Quite obviously Samsung thought so, because otherwise they wouldn't have copied Apple, and they wouldn't have written a 130 page book comparing Samsung/Android and iOS features, noting where iOS was better, and tried to copy it. And reality is, people _do_ buy things because they look nice, or because they behave nice. In the case of iOS, the user interface looking nice is a substantial part of the value. With other products, "looking nice" would always be the deciding factor between two otherwise identical products.
Rating: 6 Positives
11 months ago

Patents were created to encourage significant investment in research development, instead it's being used on something insignificant, and its true purpose is to avoid having to innovate, using the weaknesses in the implementation of patent laws to sue your competitors.

You're taking a meaningless, willfully ignorant and narrow view, which is "the law is the law and Apple deserves its protection".


If it's so not an innovation, why didn't anyone else think of it first, and if it's an innovation without value, why did Samsung copy it as soon as Apple did it?

Answer the questions. Stop trying to change the subject.

If it's so insignificant, why didn't anyone else think of it first?
If it's so insignificant, why did Samsung copy it as soon as Apple did it?

Your reply doesn't pass the smell test. Neither do the replies of anyone else who can't answer those two simple questions:

1. IF [it's not a genuine advancement/it's obvious/it's insignificant/it's not innovation/insert b.s. rationalization here] THEN Why didn't anyone else think of it first?

2. IF [it has no value because of insert b.s. justification here] THEN Why did Samsung copy it as soon as they saw Apple's implementation of it? Why would Samsung copy it at all, if it added no value?
Rating: 6 Positives

[ Read All Comments ]