Apple's Ongoing IP Battle

post Thursday January 10, 2013

There are considerable changes to Apple’s ongoing litigation with Samsung as the two tech giants  head back to the courtroom as a result of Samsung’s pending appeal to the U.S. District Court.

The biggest development of the Apple versus Samsung case centers on the reexamination of 21 claims from Apple on patent 7,844,915 by the US Patent Office. This patent is also known as the “pinch to zoom” patent that allows for devices that use Apple’s iOS to distinguish between scrolling and other gestures from two fingers zooming. This is a key piece of technology that has helped provide Apple with the lion’s share of the mobile device market.

The “pinch to zoom” patent played a pivotal role in the August ruling that was in favor of Apple’s stance that Samsung had infringed on copyrights of its mobile devices and mobile operating systems. Not only was the patent a key element of Apple’s arguments against Samsung, they jury used this patent to help assess the damages assigned to the verdict.

This invalidation ruling is the third in a series of rulings that could negatively impact Apple moving forward. One of the other rulings, unrelated to the “pinch to zoom” patent, covered the “rubber-banding” effect that is found in the iOS software. This patent, which was denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, was another element that Apple utilized to argue that infringement had indeed taken place with Samsung’s devices. The other recent ruling that was against claims on patents made by Apple was in regards to their touch screen technology. This patent, 7,479,949, was a broad patent that covered touch-screen technology.

The final assessment of these patents and the claims on them is unknown, but what is clear is that a long court battle still faces Samsung and Apple.

Source: CNET

Image Source: Free Digital Photos

Looking for more great content? Subscribe to our RSS feed to get articles as soon as they are posted.

Leave your comment

Name:	*
Title:
Comment:	*

Comments on 'Apple's Ongoing IP Battle' (57)