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

Resubscribe Now Close

Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Key to Samsung Lawsuit Preliminarily Invalidated

Tuesday October 23, 2012 5:44 am PDT by Eric Slivka
FOSS Patents reports on a new court filing from Samsung revealing that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a preliminary decision ruling that Apple's "rubber banding" patent that was a key part of the $1 billion lawsuit against Samsung has been invalidated. While numerous other reviews and appeals will undoubtedly take place in the coming months, the preliminary ruling is certainly a blow to Apple's cases against Samsung and others.
In a non-final Office action the USPTO has declared all 20 claims of Apple's rubber-banding patent (U.S. Patent No, 7,469,381 invalid, including claim 19, which Apple successfully asserted against Samsung in the summer trial in California. In fact, claim 19 is one of several claims to be deemed invalid for two reasons, either one of which would be sufficient on its own.

The report notes that the rejection could influence Judge Lucy Koh to at least partially rule in favor of Samsung's requests that the jury's verdict be overturned by the court as having been improperly issued.

The patent rejection comes after an anonymous third party challenged the validity of the patent earlier this year, requesting a reexamination by the patent office. The rubber banding patent covers the ability for iOS content to "bounce back" when a user has scrolled to the top or bottom of a given page. The feature provides an aesthetically pleasing means of alerting the user that they have reached the end of the content rather than simply stopping abruptly, but the USPTO has now ruled that the feature does not qualify as novel in light of prior art on the matter. That prior art includes not only a European patent from AOL but also a previous Apple patent.
[ 124 comments ]


Top Rated Comments

(View all)

Avatar
Macboy Pro
78 months ago
Well, you can't infringe on an invalid patent. And now Apple seems to have burned it's bridges with one of its biggest suppliers. The arrogance of the big Apple is incredible.
Rating: 23 Votes
Avatar
ouimetnick
78 months ago
The big question is why were they able to get a patent on it to begin with?

Just goes to show how screwed up the US Patent system actually is.

While I'm at it, I want to get a patent for a patent. That way when ever someone tried to patent something, I can sue them for infringing on the patent that covers applying and getting a patent.

I'll be rich.

Or I would use it to stop stupid people/companies from patenting stupid things.
Rating: 23 Votes
Avatar
KnightWRX
78 months ago

Obvious? If it's so obvious, why no one made it before?


Pretty sure "Prior art" means someone made it before... :rolleyes:

----------

Only obvious in hindsight.


Pretty sure, again, Hindsight doesn't apply to "Prior".
Rating: 21 Votes
Avatar
samcraig
78 months ago
For me this isn't about Apple or Samsung (this ruling) - this is validation that the patent system has problems. And that, given time, it IS possible for them to be corrected (albeit slowly).

This invalidation is actually a great win for the consumer in the long run. That's not an Anti-Apple sentiment. Like I said - this is about things that shouldn't have been patented in the first place being re-evaluated.
Rating: 18 Votes
Avatar
KnightWRX
78 months ago

like to know if that person/organization filed for a patent.


Irrelevant.
Rating: 14 Votes
Avatar
MH01
78 months ago

The big question is why were they able to get a patent on it to begin with?

Just goes to show how screwed up the US Patent system actually is.


Spot on.

Seems patenting the **** of our everything is now part of the development process. No matter how insignificant it might seem. And being a bureaucratic system, requests will get approved to be later rejected cause they were never analysed in the first place.

110% in agreement on how screwed up the patent system is.
Rating: 12 Votes
Avatar
harlequinn
78 months ago

Obvious? If it's so obvious, why no one made it before?


To start with it is an effect that has been animated before - so even though it may or may not have been used in this particular context before, an adaptation of an existing feature is considered obvious.

Additionally, in terms of screen interfaces, there is almost no such thing as a novel interface. There isn't much that hasn't already been thought of in academic literature, tv/movie effects, and the OS industry. More than likely you've been exposed to the last two things I just mentioned but probably not the first. There is a dearth of academic literature covering this field.
Rating: 11 Votes
Avatar
MH01
78 months ago

Well, you can't infringe on an invalid patent. And now Apple seems to have burned it's bridges with one of its biggest suppliers. The arrogance of the big Apple is incredible.


Sad thing is, Samsung make some quality components, and as Apple customers we will suffer due to lower quality components in future apple products. Samsung screens are damn good, I would not take a current Retina MBP with a LG screen.

Launching Maps, cutting Samsung as a supplier..... agree, arrogant decisions.
Rating: 11 Votes
Avatar
3282868
78 months ago
Things seem to be rubber-banding for Apple lately
Rating: 10 Votes
Avatar
fxtech
78 months ago

...the notification centre slides down from the top with a swipe, ....

It just shows how damn lazy some companies are, that despite having tons of money (khm khm, Google), they don't even take the slightest effort to do something new, but rather copy and paste an interface exactly as it is on their competitor's system.


Apparently you didn't know Android had the swipe-down notification bar years before Apple. Apple isn't the only company in the world that "innovates".
Rating: 9 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]