patent trials


'patent trials' Articles

Corephotonics Sues Apple Again Over Dual-Lens Cameras in iPhone 7 Plus and Later [Updated]

Update: Corephotonics has filed an additional lawsuit against Apple in August 2019, alleging that the dual-lens camera systems in the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X, iPhone XS, and iPhone XS Max infringe on 10 of its patents. Original story from November 2017 follows. Corephotonics, an Israeli maker of dual-lens camera technologies for smartphones, has filed a lawsuit against Apple this week alleging that the iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus infringe upon four of its patents. The patents, filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office between November 2013 and June 2016, relate to dual-lens camera technologies appropriate for smartphones, including optical zoom and a mini telephoto lens assembly. • U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032 • U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712 • U.S. Patent No. 9,185,291 • U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152Corephotonics alleges that the two iPhone models copy its patented telephoto lens design, optical zoom method, and a method for intelligently fusing images from the wide-angle and telephoto lenses to improve image quality. iPhone X isn't listed as an infringing product, despite having a dual-lens camera, perhaps because the device launched just four days ago. Corephotonics showed off some of its technologies at Mobile World Congress last year. In particular, it demonstrated software capable of combining the images of two separate camera lenses to create a more detailed picture, including the ability to optically zoom up to 5x with no moving parts. Corephotonics, founded in 2012, describes itself as a pioneer in the development of dual

Jury Rules in Favor of Qualcomm, Says Apple Infringed on Three Qualcomm Patents [Updated]

Apple and Qualcomm this week wrapped up a patent trial where Apple was accused of infringing on three of Qualcomm's patents, and the verdict from the jury is in -- Apple violated Qualcomm's patents in its iPhones. According to CNET, the jury today sided with Qualcomm and said that Apple needs to pay Qualcomm upwards of $31 million, which is the total that Qualcomm had asked for in damages. The patents in question cover a method for allowing a smartphone to quickly connect to the internet once turned on, graphics processing and battery life, and a method for allowing apps to download data more easily by directing traffic between the processor and modem. During the trial, Apple argued that one of its engineers, Arjuna Siva, had a hand in inventing the technology included in the first patent mentioned above in an attempt to get the patent invalidated, but the jury did not buy Apple's argument. Apple will undoubtedly appeal the jury's ruling, and the legal battle between Qualcomm and Apple is far from over. Next month, the two companies will be back in court over a lawsuit that Apple levied against Qualcomm after Qualcomm refused to pay $1 billion in rebate payments. Yesterday, a preliminary ruling went in Apple's favor, with a U.S. District Judge deciding that Qualcomm is obligated to make the rebate payments to Apple under the terms of the cooperation agreement between the two companies. Update: In a statement to Bloomberg, Apple said that Qualcomm is trying to distract from "larger issues" with patent infringement claims: "Qualcomm's ongoing campaign of

Qualcomm Wants Apple to Pay $31 Million in Damages in Patent Battle

Qualcomm today told a San Diego jury that it wants Apple to pay $31 million in damages for patent infringement violations, which is allegedly equivalent to $1.40 per infringing iPhone. The new information comes from CNET, which has been covering the Qualcomm vs. Apple patent trial that's in court this week. $1.40 per ‌iPhone‌ and a total of $31 million in damages suggests that Qualcomm believes only 22 million iPhones are infringing on its technology. Qualcomm came up with that total with the help of economist Patrick Kennedy, who took the stand as an expert witness for Qualcomm today. Kennedy calculated the figure based on iPhones sold from July 2017 on that used chips by Intel. Apple started using a mix of chips from both Intel and Qualcomm in the ‌iPhone‌ 7, and later transitioned to all Intel chips due to the legal troubles with Qualcomm. Qualcomm and Apple are fighting over three patents that Qualcomm says Apple infringed on with its iPhones. As CNET describes, one of the patents covers a method for allowing a smartphone to quickly connect to the internet once turned on, while another covers graphics processing and battery life. The third patent Apple is accused of violating allows apps to download data more easily by directing traffic between the apps processor and modem. Apple just last quarter earned more than $20 billion in profit, so $31 million in damages wouldn't be a hit to the company's bottom line. If Qualcomm wins the trial, though, its claim that its technology is at the "heart of every ‌iPhone‌" would be more credible. Apple and

Apple Settles Lawsuit With Biometric Sensor Company Valencell That Accused it of Stealing Technology for Apple Watch

Biometric sensor company Valencell has reportedly settled a three-year-old lawsuit against Apple that accused the tech giant of stealing its technology for Apple Watch. Valencell filed the patent infringement lawsuit against Apple back in January 2016 at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The lawsuit accused the Cupertino-based company of infringing on four of its patents, all related to heart rate sensing technology, as well as deceptive trade practices and breach of contract, following dealings Apple had with Valencell before the launch of the ‌Apple Watch‌. However, citing a Valencell source, well-connected endurance tech blog the5krunner reports that "Valencell's case against Apple has now been settled and neither is able to further comment." Valencell originally claimed Apple solicited technical information and know-how under the false pretense of a licensing agreement for its PerformTek technology, despite having no real intention of actually licensing it. The biometric company also accused Apple of deciding it was more financially beneficial to risk infringing on Valencell's patents than to license them, claiming that the practice was "consistent with the statement by Apple CEO Steve Jobs that Apple has 'always been shameless about stealing great ideas.'" Valencell had requested a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing future acts of infringement, as well as damages and an ongoing royalty rate for licensing purposes should a permanent injunction not be granted. Valencell provides the optical heart

Apple Must Pay VirnetX $440 Million for Patent Infringement, Appeals Court Rules

Apple must pay VirnetX $440 million after an appeals court upheld an earlier judgement in favor of the patent holding company, reports Reuters. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today denied Apple's appeal of a 2016 verdict that awarded VirnetX $302 million, which increased to $439.7 million when taking into account damages and interest calculated during retrials. VirnetX first sued Apple in 2010, accusing FaceTime of infringing on patents held by VirnetX. The two companies have been fighting in court since then, and Apple in 2017 said it would appeal the final $440 million judgement. In a separate case that is also still unsettled, VirnetX was awarded an additional $502.6 million from Apple after a court found that Apple's FaceTime, iMessage, and VPN on Demand features infringe on four VirnetX patents related to communications security. Apple in total owes VirnetX $942 million, but is likely to continue to fight both rulings, as the patents in question have been ruled invalid by a separate court. Apple said it is disappointed with the ruling and will once again appeal.

Judge Cuts Patent Licensing Company WiLan's $145.1M Award From Apple to $10M

Back in August, a California jury awarded Canadian patent holding company WiLan $145.1 million in an ongoing dispute with Apple after the iPhone was found to have infringed on two WiLan patents related to wireless communications technology. Apple won't be paying WiLan $145.1 million, though, as the court recently decided that WiLAN must accept reduced damages of $10 million or prepare for a new trial to figure out how much Apple needs to pay. The court did agree, however, that Apple infringed on the two patents, so the company will need to pay WiLan some amount in damages. WiLan and Apple have been ordered to enter into discussions to attempt to find a resolution, and WiLan says that it remains open to a "fair and reasonable" settlement with Apple. WiLan describes itself as "one of the most successful patent licensing companies in the world." Apple's legal dispute with WiLan started back in 2010, when WiLan claimed Apple violated one of its Bluetooth related

Apple Challenges Four Qualcomm Patents in Ongoing Legal Battle

Apple today filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of four Qualcomm patents amid an increasingly vicious legal battle, reports Bloomberg. Apple is aiming to get the USPTO to cancel the four Qualcomm patents, arguing that they do not cover new ideas. The patents in question cover camera autofocusing, a device that functions as a phone and a digital assistant, touch-sensitive displays, and circuit memory. Challenging patent validity is one of Apple's typical strategies in its legal battles. According to Bloomberg, Apple has filed a total of 398 such petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. For the Qualcomm filing, a trio of judges will consider the petition along with responses from Qualcomm, and will issue a preliminary decision on whether Apple's argument has merit. If Apple has a chance of getting the patents declared invalid, the USPTO will conduct a formal review before issuing a final judgement on the matter. Apple and Qualcomm have been embroiled in a legal battle since the beginning of 2017, with the dispute centered on how much Apple should have to pay Qualcomm in royalties. Apple claims Qualcomm has been charging unfair royalties for "technologies [it] has nothing to do with," while Qualcomm claims its technology "is at the heart of every iPhone." Apple has used Qualcomm LTE chips in its devices for years, but has been moving away from Qualcomm's technology due to the legal fight. Both Apple and Qualcomm have filed multiple lawsuits against one another, with Qualcomm also

Samsung Demands Another Retrial, Says 'No Reasonable Jury' Could Have Sided With Apple

Last month, a jury ruled that Samsung must pay Apple $539 million for violating Apple design patents as part of a legal battle that has spanned years, but the jury's ruling apparently won't be the end of the dispute between the two companies. Samsung last week filed an appeal (via CNET) asking the U.S. District Court in San Jose to either reduce the judgment against it to $28 million or hold a new trial. Samsung filed the motion on the grounds that "no reasonable jury could have found that any of Apple's asserted design patents was applied to Samsung's entire accused smartphones." The jury's ruling, says Samsung, is "excessive" and the evidence "supports a verdict of no more than $28.085 million," which was the amount Samsung advocated for during the trial. The latest Samsung v. Apple trial was held to redetermine the amount of damages Apple had to pay after Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court and said that the original damages award, set at $399 million after several appeals, was a disproportionate sum for the design violation. During the trial, the jury was tasked with deciding whether the damages should be based on the total value of the iPhone or if Samsung's penalty should be based on just the elements of the iPhone that it copied. Apple argued for $1 billion in damages based on the total design of the iPhone, while Samsung argued that it should pay a far lesser amount, the aforementioned $28 million. The jury split the difference and awarded Apple $539 million, which happened to be a far larger penalty than the original $399 million damages ruling

Samsung Ordered to Pay Apple $539 Million in iPhone Design Patent Retrial

The latest Samsung v. Apple trial wrapped up this afternoon after the jury decided that Samsung must pay Apple a total of $539 million for violating Apple's design patents with five android devices sold between 2010 and 2011, reports CNET. A total of $533,316,606 was awarded to Apple for Samsung's violation of three design patents, while the remaining $5,325,050 was for Samsung's infringement on two of Apple's utility patents. Samsung and Apple were back in court to redetermined damages after Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court and said that the original damages award, which was set at $399 million after several appeals, was a "disproportionate" sum for the design violation. The Supreme Court ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals to redetermine the damages amount, leading to today's victory for Apple. The core issue of the retrial was whether the damages should be based on the total value of the iPhone or if Samsung's fee should be based on just the elements of the iPhone that it copied. Apple argued that its payment should be based on the full value of the iPhone, while Samsung argued that it should pay a lesser amount. They're seeking profits on the entire phone," argued Samsung lawyer John Quinn. "Apple's design patents do not cover the entire phone. They are entitled to profits only on [infringing] components, not the entire phone." Apple asked the jury to award $1 billion in damages, while Samsung asked jurors to limit the damages to $28 million. Unfortunately for Samsung, the jury sided with Apple, and the new award is more than Samsung would have

Apple Demands $1 Billion From Samsung for Design Patent Violations as New Damages Trial Kicks Off

Apple and Samsung are back in court this week for a damages retrial that will determine just how much Samsung has to pay Apple for infringing on Apple design patents. Samsung was found guilty of violating the patents back in 2012, but the two companies have been fighting over the amount of money Samsung should pay as a result for the last six years. The core issue between the two companies is whether the damages should be based on the total value of the device, or whether Samsung should pay a fee based just on the elements of the phone that it copied. Apple is of the opinion that its payment should be based on the full value of the iPhone, while Samsung is arguing that it should pay a lesser amount based only on a portion of the iPhone's value. "They're seeking profits on the entire phone," argued Samsung lawyer John Quinn. "Apple's design patents do not cover the entire phone. They are entitled to profits only on [infringing] components, not the entire phone." Yesterday was spent picking jurors, while opening arguments and testimony started today. Key Apple executives like Tim Cook and Jony Ive will not be testifying during the trial, but Richard Howarth, senior director of the Apple Design Team will discuss the design process, and Susan Kare will also take the stand to talk about user interface graphics design. Apple vice president of product marketing Greg Joswiak was first up to testify this afternoon, where he said that the design of the iPhone is central to Apple's products and that Apple took a huge risk with its development. Joswiak: With the #iPhon

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Samsung's Appeal in Years-Old 'Slide to Unlock' Lawsuit With Apple

The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday rejected Samsung's request to appeal a $119.6 million verdict awarded to Apple in an over six year old "Slide to Unlock" patent infringement lawsuit, according to Reuters. In October 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reinstated Apple's award after a lower court found Samsung to have infringed upon several popular iPhone features, including slide-to-unlock and autocorrect. The lawsuit, from 2011, is so old that slide-to-unlock isn't even used on iPhones anymore. Unlocking an iPhone on iOS 10 or later requires using Face ID on iPhone X, and Touch ID or pressing the Home button on older iPhone models. This case is not to be confused with another 2011 lawsuit in which Apple accused Samsung of copying the iPhone's design with its Galaxy-branded smartphones. A damages retrial in that lawsuit is scheduled for next May.

Apple's Lengthy Lawsuit With Samsung Over Copying iPhone's Design Headed Back to Court

Apple's over six year old legal battle with Samsung for copying the iPhone's design is headed back to court yet again. U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Sunday ordered that a new trial is required to determine whether Apple's $399 million award for Samsung's design patent infringement should stand or whether a new damages trial is required. Apple and Samsung have until Wednesday to propose a retrial date, according to intellectual property analyst Florian Mueller, but he believes there is about a 30 percent chance the two parties could settle out of court before then. The lawsuit dates back to 2011, when Apple successfully sued Samsung for infringing upon the iPhone's patented design, including its rectangular front face with rounded edges and grid of colorful icons on a black screen. Apple's damages were awarded based on Samsung's entire profit from the sale of its infringing smartphones, but Samsung argued that the amount should be a percentage based on individual components like the front bezel or display. Last December, the U.S. Supreme Court recommended that the U.S. Court of Appeals reconsider the damages amount that Samsung owes. Apple's statement at the time:The question before the Supreme Court was how to calculate the amount Samsung should pay for their copying. Our case has always been about Samsung's blatant copying of our ideas, and that was never in dispute. We will continue to protect the years of hard work that has made iPhone the world's most innovative and beloved product. We remain optimistic that the lower courts will again send

Apple Plans to Appeal $439M 'Final Judgment' in FaceTime Patent Lawsuit With VirnetX

VirnetX today announced that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has denied all of Apple's motions in a longstanding FaceTime-related patent lawsuit between the two companies. The court also granted all of VirnetX's motions in the retrial and increased the royalty rates that Apple owes during the infringement period, resulting in a revised final judgment amount of $439.7 million. "We are elated with the Court's Final Judgement of $439 million in that not only did it affirm the jury's verdict of $1.20 per infringing iPhone, iPad and Mac Product, but also added for willful infringement, interest and attorney fees. This is the third time a jury has ruled in our favor against Apple," said Kendall Larsen, VirnetX CEO. VirnetX originally sued Apple in 2010 over allegations that FaceTime's peer-to-peer connection technology infringed upon its patents. VirnetX won its case in 2012, and Apple was hit with a $368.2 million judgment, but the appeals and retrial process has dragged on for over seven years until now. Of note, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is a hotbed for patent infringement lawsuits given several favorable outcomes for patent holding entities like VirnetX. Some would even call the company a patent troll, although it does appear to offer at least one product of some kind. A spokesperson for Apple confirmed that it plans to appeal this final judgment, according to TechCrunch. It noted that the motions can still be appealed even if the original case was already appealed and

Supreme Court Ruling Should Spell the End of Apple's Patent Troll Battles in East Texas [Updated]

The Supreme Court of the United States today decided that U.S. companies may only face patent infringement lawsuits in the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated, which in Apple's case would be California. The decision is significant for Apple, as the iPhone maker faces several patent infringement lawsuits in a single district court in Eastern Texas that is considered friendly to patent holding entities, or so-called "patent trolls." That very court in Tyler, Texas has, for example, ordered Apple to pay $532.9 million to patent licensing firm Smartflash LLC in 2015, and $22.1 million to Acacia Research last September for infringing upon patents it acquired from Nokia. By limiting where patent infringement lawsuits can be filed, the Supreme Court's decision means that Apple will likely be able to battle patent infringement lawsuits in Northern California, and finally put East Texas behind it. The Supreme Court's decision today relates to a Delaware-based lawsuit between Heartland Food Products Group and The Kraft Heinz Company, but it extends to all domestic companies across the United States. Update: The appears to be considerable confusion throughout media coverage of this ruling. The ruling narrowly limited a company's "residence" to the place of incorporation, but patent lawsuits may still be filed anywhere "the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." As a result, it appears patent lawsuits can still be filed against Apple in many jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of

Apple Loses Labor Code Violation and Core Wireless Lawsuits

A federal jury for the U.S. District Court for Northern California today found Apple to be infringing upon a pair of wireless patents owned by Core Wireless, a patent holding firm with a large portfolio of more than 1,200 patents and applications, originally filed and later acquired from phone maker Nokia. Core Wireless was awarded $7.3 million in damages as part of the ruling, which Apple is likely to appeal. In its complaint, Core Wireless argued iPhones and cellular-enabled iPads infringe upon its patented wireless technologies, according to court documents filed electronically. Core Wireless, in a statement following the verdict, said the patents-in-suit — U.S. Patent No. 6,633,536 and U.S. Patent No. 6,477,151 — "provide innovations that improve battery life and signal quality in mobile phones.""We are very pleased with the verdict," said John Lindgren, Conversant's CEO. "We appreciate the efforts of the court and the jury. This confirms the strength of the Core Wireless portfolio, especially following our success against LG earlier this year in two cases in the Eastern District of Texas."Meanwhile, Apple lost another lawsuit this week when a San Diego Superior Court jury reached a verdict in favor of a group of former Apple Store retail employees, who accused the company of failing to provide timely meal and rest breaks, wages due upon ending employment within the required time, and accurate wage statements. California Labor Code dictates that employees must be provided with at least a 30-minute meal break when the work period is more than five hours, and

Samsung Owes Apple $120 Million in Longstanding Slide-to-Unlock Lawsuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reinstated Apple's $119.6 million award in a longstanding patent lawsuit with Samsung, after eight of twelve judges ruled it was wrong to throw out the verdict in February.The bulk of the award, $98.7 million, was for the detection patent that the earlier panel said wasn’t infringed. The February decision also said the other two patents were invalid. […] That was a wrong decision, the court ruled Friday, because it relied on issues that were never raised on appeal or on information that was beyond the trial record.The long-running lawsuit dates back to 2011, when Apple accused Samsung of infringing upon its now-retired slide-to-unlock feature, autocorrect, and a method of detecting phone numbers so they can be tapped to make phone calls, according to Bloomberg. The case is not to be confused with a similar Apple v. Samsung lawsuit related to accusations of older Galaxy smartphones infringing upon the iPhone's design. The appeals court will argue that second case, also dating back to 2011, on Tuesday to determine how much Samsung should pay for copying the look and feel of the iPhone, according to the report. Samsung was originally ordered to pay Apple damages of $548 million, but it appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in December as a last-ditch effort to avoid paying the settlement. In August, over 100 world-renowned designers, including Calvin Klein, Dieter Rams, and Norman Foster, filed an amicus brief in support of Apple in the lawsuit. The designers argued that a product's visual design has "powerful effects

Apple Ordered to Pay $302 Million in Damages to VirnetX in Patent Retrial

Apple has been ordered to pay more than $302 million in damages for using VirnetX Holding Corp's patented internet security technology in its FaceTime platform without permission. According to a Reuters report filed late on Friday, the verdict was handed down by a federal jury in Texas that has a reputation for awarding favorable verdicts to plaintiffs in cases involving patent infringement. The U.S. district judge presiding over the case, Robert Schroeder, previously threw out VirnetX's $625.6 million win over Apple from a previous trial because he said jurors in that case may have been confused. The case with Nevada-based patent licensor VirnetX originally began in 2010, with a jury eventually awarding the company $368 million in 2012, but that decision was thrown out in 2014 after the court decided there were problems with how the trial judge had instructed jurors on calculating damages. VirnetX continued to pursue Apple in relation to patents it believes the company infringed upon. The previous two suits were combined by the licensor's lawyers, and in February, a jury returned with an even bigger verdict, $625.6 million – one of the highest ever in a U.S. patent case. However, Schroeder later voided the result, saying that the repeated references to the earlier case could have confused jurors and were unfair to Apple. In the latest trial, reports Reuters, jurors were asked to determine damages on two VirnetX patents that Apple had already been found to infringe, and to determine both infringement and damages on another two patents. The final

Judge Throws Out $625 Million VirnetX Verdict Against Apple, Sets Two Separate Retrials

Apple will no longer have to pay $625.6 million to VirnetX, which claimed the Cupertino company was infringing upon four Internet security-related patents. The decision came last Friday afternoon from U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder in Tyler, Texas, claiming that it was "unfair" on Apple's part that two VirnetX lawsuits were aimed at the company in one trial (via Reuters). The case with VirnetX began originally in 2010, with a jury eventually awarding the company $368 million in 2012, but that decision was thrown out in 2014 after the court found the verdict was "'tainted' by erroneous jury instructions in the case." VirnetX remained adamant and kept going after Apple, now amounting to the four total patents it believes Apple infringed upon, related to services like FaceTime and Messages. In the new ruling, Judge Shroeder claimed that jurors in the current case may have been unknowingly swayed and influenced by the events of the previous lawsuit, ultimately leading to an "unfair trial." As such, he has ordered that each case face a separate retrial, the first beginning next month on September 26. VirnetX CEO Kendall Larsen mentioned the company's disappointment at Shroeder's decision, but is preparing for the upcoming retrials all the same. "We are disappointed," VirnetX Chief Executive Kendall Larsen said in a statement on Monday. "We are reviewing all our options and will follow the court's direction as we start preparing for these retrials." In May, following its win in February, VirnetX continued to ask for more money from Apple, along with an injunction

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Samsung's $548 Million Settlement Appeal October 11

In March, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Samsung's appeal of a lower court decision that ordered the Korean-based company to pay $548 million to Apple. The Supreme Court's website was updated with its October 2016 term today, noting that the appeal hearing will take place on October 11, 2016. The hearing will be the first of the day. Samsung plans to appeal what it believes are "excessive penalties" for allegedly "copying the patented designs of the iPhone." Specifically, Samsung's petition asks the court to hear two questions: the scope of a design patent and whether patent infringement damages should be based on profits for infringing components or total profits. The Korean electronics maker has already paid Apple the $548 million settlement, but Samsung can get reimbursed should the Supreme Court reverse or modify the original judgment. Apple had urged the Supreme Court to deny the appeal as it felt Samsung was raising issues that did not "deserve review" in an effort to prolong

Supreme Court Ruling Supports Apple's Long-Running Fight Against Patent Trolls

The Supreme Court yesterday made it a few steps easier for technology companies like Apple to challenge lawsuits from "patent assertion businesses," or patent trolls. The decision implemented part of a 2011 law that created "quicker and cheaper" avenues into contesting patents with the Patent Office, instead of having to delve into a lengthy court battle or face a federal judge (via The Wall Street Journal). This way, companies like Apple -- who face patent trolls frequently -- could easily argue against unseemly patent lawsuits in far less time, and without spending as much money. Speaking for the court system, Justice Stephen Breyer said that the new ruling in favor of the Patent Office approach will help "to protect the public" since it'll prevent potential patent trolls from claiming overly broad patents that "might discourage the use of the invention by a member of the public." The 2011 law created quicker and cheaper procedures for contesting patents in front of the Patent Office instead of in front of a federal judge. But some argued the procedures overcompensated and made patents too vulnerable. That is because the Patent Office adopted challenger-friendly legal standards that were different than those used in courts. The Supreme Court acknowledged the Patent Office rules depart from those used in court, but said the agency had taken a reasonable approach. So far, cases emerging from the Patent Office are said to rule largely in favor of the individual or company contesting the patent. According to recent government data, a reported 80 percent of the