Share this Story

USPTO Axes Rubber-Banding Patent Used in Apple’s Case Against Samsung

Yesterday, the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) gave Apple a reason to worry. According to their newest claims, the “rubber-banding” patent, which was a large focus in the case against Samsung just a while ago, has been found as invalid. Thanks to some previous art that had been submitted that showed the idea was around well before it arrived at Apple, Samsung’s $1 billion fine may come down quite a bit. 

Upon hearing the good news, Samsung filed a motion with Judge Lucy Koh to bring the newest development to her attention. Once she gets a look over and decides what action she will take, we’ll let you know.

It’s looking good for Samsung.

Via: FOSS Patents

Cheers Brian, Heath, Ian, and Ryan!

  • Test

    • Fancy Face

      Testy test

      • Yep Yep

        Another test

  • flosserelli

    Oh ok…NOW they decide to look into the validity of Apple’s patents. Why didn’t this happen before Apple was awarded $1 billion?


  • Trevor

    Every time I read the word patent, I die a little inside.

  • EC8CH

    But did the USPTO check to see if the prior art’s software could be put on the iphone’s processor and vise versa…. Mr Hogan wants to know 😛

  • J. Gilbertson

    oh snap!

  • The first domino falls….apple has a lot of invalid patents

  • chris125

    This just makes a better case for samsung in appeals. Keep finding prior art and get more of apple’s patents invalidated for the appeals process

  • chris125

    This is great for everyone. USPTO finally doing something right and one less thing samsung and other manufacturers have to worry about in the long run. Let them build their products and battle it out on the market not in the court rooms apple.

  • Delicious.

  • Now the “square with rounded edges” patent please..

    • Justin W

      Wasn’t it rectangle? And yes, get rid of it.

      • Maybe it was.. I don’t have a good memory for BS..

      • Technically all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

    • BS

      I think Star Trek provided the prior art…..

  • NexusMan

    Unbelievable….it took this long….Samsung lost in the 1st place….I read elsewhere that they actually invalidated 20 Apple Patents, 1 specifically, which was a part of that B.S. $1.3 Billion award against Samsung.

    • hfoster52

      Lost the trial but there are appeals which items like these help with those appeals. Especially when the majority of an award ruling is based on a patent like this. You better bet Samsung’s lawyers and Google’s lawyers will jump all over this and look at other patents that apple has to see if they are invalid and pressure the patent office. Put those lobbying dollars to work.

  • EvanTheGamer

    Apple might have won the battle, but they have not won the war! And Samsung may be down, but they are certainly not out!

    Samsung FTW! And Apple FTL!

  • schoat333

    Interesting. Very interesting.

  • CopierITGuy

    Next up…. Rounded Corners!

  • Steve Jobs Jr.

    Poor CrApple.

  • Southrncomfortjm

    But, are we still good on rectangles with rounded corners? I’m not sure I’d ever seen that before the iPhone. Ever.

    • Droidzilla

      This changes everything. Sorta.

      • Justin W

        Again. Lol

  • DanWazz

    Hey look, the USPTO is actually doing their job.

  • Bharath

    This is only a tentative invalidation which gives the Android manufacturers the breathing space they need. It is not like Patent Office has made it final. The ball is Apple’s court to prove that it is valid.

    • aye_winchell

      they wont be able too, i was learning how to do this on interface design back in the early 2000’s (somewhere between 01 and 03) and people had already been doing in for years. True this wasn’t on a touch device, but that’s besides the point, the patent covered how the interfaces reacted as it moved, being touch has nothing to do with it. I’ll upvote for the truth that’s it a tentative invalidation but every process has an appeals process the patent office not making it final yet has no baring on whether or not this a significant finding, sure its telling us what we already know, but more importantly its telling the courts that perhaps they should pump there breaks a little in regards to interface patents.

  • triangle8

    How do you like them apples?

    • aye_winchell

      applesauce bitch.

  • If you look through alot of the alleged patent violation that Apple sued for, you can find examples of prior art, it is just a matter of the fact if they are acknowledged or not. There were other examples of prior art which were shown at the trial and were denied, why? Realistically, the patent office should be researching prior art before issuing a patent. I know it would take time and issued patents would be delayed but that is supposedly their job now isn’t it?

    • Southrncomfortjm

      The prior art was denied at trial because the jury, led by the foreman, largely misunderstood how prior art worked.

      • j__h

        That guy had some agenda and dragged the others along with him.

    • Droidzilla

      Koh denied the prior art claims because Samsung’s lawyers missed the filing deadline. That’s the official story, but who knows what really happened. I seriously doubt that they missed the court deadline; no lawyer at that level is that incompetent. Either Koh didn’t disclose the deadline or Sammy missed it on purpose to bring more media attention and banked on getting the patents thrown out on appeal.

      • EDNYLaw

        Don’t kid yourself, they can, and in fact often are, that incompetent. Lawyers for the last 30 years or so (maybe longer but most of them are dead or retired) are usually just terrible. I wipe the floor with them on a daily basis and I have considerably less experience, but vastly superior skills. But I digress, while they could have missed the deadline, it is absolutely within the discretion of the district court to allow in evidence, especially if it was just discovered.

        The fact that Judge Koh didn’t let this in, then was summarily reversed by the 9th Circuit, shows that either she’s inept or biased. Those are really the only two options. Give me 10 minutes and I could find case law stating evidence may be admissible after discovery. Westlaw is a beautiful thing, it’s too bad so many attorneys are incompetent…

        • Aaron

          Badass alert everyone!

          • EDNYLaw

            And well earned. I cost VZW $1.25 million, with another possible fine coming their way… what have you done today?

          • Aaron

            Hey, I’m all for Verizon getting fined for screwing people so good job. I would pat you on that back but I have a feeling you’ve done enough of that yourself already.

          • EDNYLaw

            Thanks for the support… I’ll be sure and add your name in my next complaint. I’m sorry I’m proud of my accomplishments.

          • EC8CH

            Nah man…. go on wit yo bad self

            For your next act get VZW to explain how their blocking of Google Wallet is not blatantly illegal.

          • EDNYLaw

            I am, read up jasonklimek.webs.com or aosp.us enjoy

      • vikings football

        even if samsungs lawyers missed the filing deadline to include prior art as evidence, the fact that prior art was evident shouldnt had been ignored regardless

  • And then sense prevailed … Let there be light!

    • H2Oyeah

      It took long enough!

    • Michael_NM

      Actually, touchwiz prevailed.

  • moelsen8

    heehaw. wish they’d review all of their bullsh*t patents.

  • Droidzilla

    The USPTO invalidates one of Apple’s BS patents? Is this real life? Is this . . . is this the Matrix?

    • Michael_NM

      Isn’t “Apple BS” redundant?

    • Butters619

      Now if only their slide to unlock and data parse menu patents would follow.

      • Droidzilla

        Let’s hope the house of cards comes down. The USPTO really ought to clamp down on this nonsense; Apple’s been making them look like a bunch of fools for the last several years with the crap Apple’s gotten away with. The USPTO is being used as a weapon in their anticompetitive arsenal rather than as a shield for innovators. If I were the head of the USPTO, I would be pissed.

        • Butters619

          It’s time the USPTO does something. Basically what Apple does is file a super general patent and keeps making it slightly less general every time it’s rejected. Finally, either the patent is made just specific enough to get through but general enough to patent troll, or the USPTO just gets worn down and the patent slips through. Although in both cases, the patent office probably didn’t have enough time to truly investigate prior art because of how slammed they are. It’s a way to game the system.

          • Droidzilla

            I work at a nutrition supplement concern that ships internationally. We don’t follow other country’s customs laws because they’re too variable and they’re inconsistently enforced, so sometimes we have a product with an ingredient that’s banned for importation in a certain country. If that country sees a few shipments from us to customers that have a banned substance, they’ll put our company on red flag status and everything we ship to them will be scrutinised through customs (they don’t search everything, normally; just a random sampling).

            How long before the USPTO has Apple red flagged for abuse of the system?

          • Michael_NM

            Your analogy is spot on.

        • michael arazan

          Maybe they’ll realize that a flat rectagular surface has been used by TV’s too, way before apple made their devices look like a flat screen tv.

    • zepfloyd

      There’s no white pills in the Matrix…

    • We’ll find out if it’s real life when Apple sues the USPTO for something.

      • Droidzilla

        That would be awesome! Let the USPTO and Apple bog each other down indefinitely in court while everyone else gets on with the business of making products.

    • Damn it, who told him!?