Posted on 06/21/2016 12:19:50 PM PDT by Swordmaker
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled that a 2011 law designed to make it easier to defeat new patent trolls were legal. The law had been challenged by a company attempting to patent something which had long been done by other companies.
The case before the Supreme Court focused on a patent held by Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC that claims an invention for alerting drivers when they are speeding. GPS technology company Garmin brought a challenge at the Patent Office, which invalidated the Cuozzo patent after concluding its claims weren’t innovative when viewed against other prior technologies.
The ruling will be of particular benefit to Apple …
The company revealed two years ago that it was the number one target for patent trolls, the company stating that while it rarely lost on the merits, it had often chosen to settle cases simply because doing so was cheaper than the legal costs of defending them.
The WSJ reports that Apple has on more than one occasion used the procedures created by the 2011 law to challenge dubious patent applications.
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 […]
It is a boost for technology companies like Google and Apple that have taken advantage of new procedures at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to challenge the validity of patents they believed made weak claims to new innovations.
The court heard that the accelerated process had so far resulted in more than 80% of those patents challenged being declared invalid.
Apple was recently hit with the dumbest patent troll claim yet: that the iPhone infringed patents by making phone calls and sending emails.
SCOTUS.
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Apple just lost a Patent case in China. Did they steal the 6 design?
Trolls and thieves, let them have at it.
Just FYI, Cuozzo Speed is just idiotic. It basically sets up two different standards to reject a patent claim depending on where the defendant wants to adjudicate patentability, which in turn causes forum-hunting issues.
That, combined with the fact that the USPTO administrative patent judges are effing morons, leads to disaster
NO.
In China, patent infringement cases can be brought what in what are the equivalent of MUNICIPAL COURTS. That is what happened in a court in Beijing.
I posted that case on FreeRepublic and also posted the fact that the judge in the case also ruled that Apple could continue selling the iPhone 6 and 6 plus because, in his opinion, his "design patent infringement" ruling on behalf of the plaintiff would be quickly overruled by a higher regional court, which is what usually happens as 100+'s phone looks like lots of other phones on the market and they likely got a look at Apple's upcoming iPhone which was already in manufacturing production at FoxConn and Pegatron down the street from their storefront when the quickly brought their look-alike out and quickly applied for a Chinese design patent.
You really have no clue about technology.
The courts are setup (not a conspiracy but how it works) that in a patent dispute, the court favors the smaller company.
Outside of the USA, the court favors the home country.
Employees within USA premium technical companies are constantly trained to AVOID contaminating internal designs with any external IP in ANY form.
One Engineer can cost a company Billions by trying to sneak something in.
Outside the USA with China/South Korea court protections, such business restrictions don’t exist.
Intel Oregon monitors the parking lots as they have often found non-employees stalking employees looking for computers in trunks and open internet connections.
A bit scatterbrained.
How could the idiots at the patent office actually APPROVE a patent like that - especially within the last 10 years, considering “a device to make phone calls and send email” has been in common use for at least that long...
How about patent reform period - have to show something unique and enough different before a patent can even be considered? Seems like a no-brainer to me....
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.