Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
Steve Jobs Patent Stands out in Apple Infringement Case against Motorola
| November 3, 2010
Apple filed two complaints (here and here) in the Western District of Wisconsin last Friday, accusing Motorola of infringing a series of Apple patents. The accused products are imported “mobile devices and related software,” specifically, “the Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm.”
One patent in particular stands out – U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949, entitled “Touch Screen Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Determining Commands by Applying Heuristics” – because it has already survived a reexamination request. In April EMG Technology filed a substantial reexamination request, asserting a long series of potential prior art rejections against each of the ‘949 claims. In June the PTO refused to grant reexamination, finding that the request had failed to raise even a single substantial new question (SNQ) of patentability with respect to the ‘949 claims. EMG has not petitioned the PTO to reconsider. The PTO’s refusal to grant reexamination will certainly enhance the validity of the ‘949 claims.
Apple may also enjoy a certain psychological victory with respect to its other patents-in-suit – presumably Apple’s opponents selected for reexamination the patent most vulnerable to attack. Accordingly, the failure to obtain a grant of reexamination against the ‘949 patent may make Apple’s other patents seem more formidable.
The ‘949 patent also stands out because it names 25 inventors, among them Steve Jobs.
Earlier this year, Apple sued Nokia and HTC for infringement of a number of patents, including the ‘949 patent.
