U.S. Patent Laws
The process of patenting inventions has been around for nearly 600 years (and nearly 225 years in the United States). In the late 1400s, the Republic of Venice was the first to adopt the modern practice of patenting inventions. The motivation for this was for the public to know about certain inventions in exchange for the inventor having exclusive rights to use those inventions. A patent does not give the inventor the right to make his invention; rather it gives him the right to exclude others for making it. Patenting has always been a part of the United States legal system with origins in the Articles of Confederation. In the Constitution, Congress is given the ultimate power, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Through time, patents have become much more complex as inventions began to widen in scope. Now there are many different types of patents including design patents, utility patents, and plant patents. Each one has their own domain but operate in the same ways.
Patents differ from similar topics such as trademarks and copyrights. Copyrights deal with original authorship in both published and unpublished works. Once an author acquires a copyright, no other author is permitted to reproduce that work, produce derivative works, or distribute copies of that work. Literary, musical, and dramatic works are all included under the umbrella of copyrights. Trademarks protect any word, symbol, or device that indicate or distinguish one good from another. These symbols are used in trade and are distributed to prevent others from using a similar mark. They are not meant to prohibit another manufacturer from selling similar products. Finally, as stated before, patents give exclusive rights to inventors and their inventions. In the United States, the term of a new patent is twenty years from the date on which its application was sent in. Exclusive rights exclude others from reproducing, offering for sale, or importing that particular invention.
Specifically, utility patents are issued to protect inventors when they create a new useful process, machine, or improvement of an existing invention. When a utility patent is issued, other inventors are excluded from manufacturing or selling that invention for twenty years. Utility, or usefulness, is a requirement that needs to be met in order for a patent to be issued. The invention or process must simply operate as it’s described for the usefulness requirement to be met. Patents of illegal or fraudulent purposes will not be issued by the U.S. government. However, patents may be issued to inventions which are considered immoral by some (e.g. gambling websites). Utility patents account for about 90% of all patents. They differ from design patents which are more concerned on how certain inventions look. Since utility patents cover any new, or improved, invention or process, they span a wide variety of topics within the field of technology such as hardware, software, or functionality. For example, a utility patent can be issued for a keyboard that improves typing speed and a software application that helps users how to type more efficiently.
One of the more prominent cases the realm of utility patents is Brenner v. Manson. Manson was a chemist who created a new process for developing a type of steroid that was already being studied for anti-cancer treatment. His application for a patent was rejected because he had not stated what the purpose for developing it was. After a number of appeals, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed the decision saying an explicit purpose did not have to be stated, just proof that the invention was not a detriment to society. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled that decision essentially saying Manson created a useful process for a useless product. They decided that giving Manson a patent for a useless product would discourage others from finding a use for that steroid.
Patents differ from similar topics such as trademarks and copyrights. Copyrights deal with original authorship in both published and unpublished works. Once an author acquires a copyright, no other author is permitted to reproduce that work, produce derivative works, or distribute copies of that work. Literary, musical, and dramatic works are all included under the umbrella of copyrights. Trademarks protect any word, symbol, or device that indicate or distinguish one good from another. These symbols are used in trade and are distributed to prevent others from using a similar mark. They are not meant to prohibit another manufacturer from selling similar products. Finally, as stated before, patents give exclusive rights to inventors and their inventions. In the United States, the term of a new patent is twenty years from the date on which its application was sent in. Exclusive rights exclude others from reproducing, offering for sale, or importing that particular invention.
Specifically, utility patents are issued to protect inventors when they create a new useful process, machine, or improvement of an existing invention. When a utility patent is issued, other inventors are excluded from manufacturing or selling that invention for twenty years. Utility, or usefulness, is a requirement that needs to be met in order for a patent to be issued. The invention or process must simply operate as it’s described for the usefulness requirement to be met. Patents of illegal or fraudulent purposes will not be issued by the U.S. government. However, patents may be issued to inventions which are considered immoral by some (e.g. gambling websites). Utility patents account for about 90% of all patents. They differ from design patents which are more concerned on how certain inventions look. Since utility patents cover any new, or improved, invention or process, they span a wide variety of topics within the field of technology such as hardware, software, or functionality. For example, a utility patent can be issued for a keyboard that improves typing speed and a software application that helps users how to type more efficiently.
One of the more prominent cases the realm of utility patents is Brenner v. Manson. Manson was a chemist who created a new process for developing a type of steroid that was already being studied for anti-cancer treatment. His application for a patent was rejected because he had not stated what the purpose for developing it was. After a number of appeals, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed the decision saying an explicit purpose did not have to be stated, just proof that the invention was not a detriment to society. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled that decision essentially saying Manson created a useful process for a useless product. They decided that giving Manson a patent for a useless product would discourage others from finding a use for that steroid.
Recent Patent Laws Regarding Utility
Patent law, in recent years, has adapted to a rapidly expanding market that had previously been untapped. Specifically, the electronic software industry has developed over the past forty years, with technology booms in the late 1980s and late 1990s. In 1989, Lawrence Fisher wrote in the New York Times about the proliferation of software patents. The public and experts alike were wary and concerned of the rush of new patents covering processes once thought as being in the public domain.
One such example of a system, that had been patented by Quarterdeck Office Systems, was the layering of program interfaces, creating “windows” on display. Clarifications needed to be made as to how patents regarding software would be issued, especially since a programs are “often highly derivative process[es] that refine old ideas.” Kenneth Wasch, executive director of the Software Publishers Association in Washington, stated that “I can't think of a single software company that thinks the proliferation of patents is a good thing; I can think of a lot of law firms that think so.'' The author then goes on to give background information surrounding the issue, specifically that “no patents were issued on software before 1980, when the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a computer program did not prevent patenting a process. Since all software is part of a process run on a machine, nearly any program or some portion of it is patentable, lawyers say.” Overall, the 1989 article foreshadowed the coming concerns surrounding future legal cases where patent owners may “extort” money from all who utilize the process, even if it appears vital for use. The issues discussed illustrate the breadth of patenting power in regards to simple, and often vital, software needed to run a system. (Fisher, New York Times)
In a 1994 article found in the New York Times, Sabra Chartrand wrote about Compton’s software in relation to changing Patent and Trademark Office policies. The article gives a brief background to the situation, where the Compton company filed for a received a patent for search-and-retrieval software in 1993. They sought licensing and royalty fees from all who used to software. Upon closer inspection on the part of the US Patent Office, however, they “had found dozens of documents it had previously overlooked, which proved that Compton's had not invented anything new,” prompting the PTO to revoke the patent in October 1994. This mistake on the part of the PTO prompted them to begin hiring employees with computer science degrees who would have more knowledge of electronics and whether software is new enough to receive a patent. Additionally, the PTO “outsourced” some research to the Software Patent Institute, which is a non-profit organization that collects obscure publications. Difficult to find or obscure documents regarding old technologies are called “folklore” within the office. The SPI finds the information for both patent distributors (the PTO) and inventors. People could in theory mistakenly use software without being aware it is copyrighted, even without malicious intent, simply to the obscurity of some documents. However, this may not necessarily be as applicable to Samsung’s case, due to Apple alleging malice of intent on Samsung’s part.(Chartrand, New York Times)
In a New York Times article written by Sabra Chartrand in 2000, the U.S. Patent Office again is under fire, due to criticisms “that it has been slow and clumsy in adapting its policies, hiring practices and training efforts to keep up with the high-technology economy.” In June 2000, the “House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary proposed appropriating $905 million for the patent office” in spite of the White House’s recommendations to increase funding. That amount corresponded only to an increase in inflation, which frustrated the director of the patent office. On a larger scale, this event highlights the reputation of the PTO within the government at large, with it receiving relatively little respect due to perceived incompetence during the late 1990s and early 2000s. (Chartrand, New York Times)
One such example of a system, that had been patented by Quarterdeck Office Systems, was the layering of program interfaces, creating “windows” on display. Clarifications needed to be made as to how patents regarding software would be issued, especially since a programs are “often highly derivative process[es] that refine old ideas.” Kenneth Wasch, executive director of the Software Publishers Association in Washington, stated that “I can't think of a single software company that thinks the proliferation of patents is a good thing; I can think of a lot of law firms that think so.'' The author then goes on to give background information surrounding the issue, specifically that “no patents were issued on software before 1980, when the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a computer program did not prevent patenting a process. Since all software is part of a process run on a machine, nearly any program or some portion of it is patentable, lawyers say.” Overall, the 1989 article foreshadowed the coming concerns surrounding future legal cases where patent owners may “extort” money from all who utilize the process, even if it appears vital for use. The issues discussed illustrate the breadth of patenting power in regards to simple, and often vital, software needed to run a system. (Fisher, New York Times)
In a 1994 article found in the New York Times, Sabra Chartrand wrote about Compton’s software in relation to changing Patent and Trademark Office policies. The article gives a brief background to the situation, where the Compton company filed for a received a patent for search-and-retrieval software in 1993. They sought licensing and royalty fees from all who used to software. Upon closer inspection on the part of the US Patent Office, however, they “had found dozens of documents it had previously overlooked, which proved that Compton's had not invented anything new,” prompting the PTO to revoke the patent in October 1994. This mistake on the part of the PTO prompted them to begin hiring employees with computer science degrees who would have more knowledge of electronics and whether software is new enough to receive a patent. Additionally, the PTO “outsourced” some research to the Software Patent Institute, which is a non-profit organization that collects obscure publications. Difficult to find or obscure documents regarding old technologies are called “folklore” within the office. The SPI finds the information for both patent distributors (the PTO) and inventors. People could in theory mistakenly use software without being aware it is copyrighted, even without malicious intent, simply to the obscurity of some documents. However, this may not necessarily be as applicable to Samsung’s case, due to Apple alleging malice of intent on Samsung’s part.(Chartrand, New York Times)
In a New York Times article written by Sabra Chartrand in 2000, the U.S. Patent Office again is under fire, due to criticisms “that it has been slow and clumsy in adapting its policies, hiring practices and training efforts to keep up with the high-technology economy.” In June 2000, the “House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary proposed appropriating $905 million for the patent office” in spite of the White House’s recommendations to increase funding. That amount corresponded only to an increase in inflation, which frustrated the director of the patent office. On a larger scale, this event highlights the reputation of the PTO within the government at large, with it receiving relatively little respect due to perceived incompetence during the late 1990s and early 2000s. (Chartrand, New York Times)
Apple's Patent Utility Claims
Apple has made a number of utility patent infringement claims throughout this ongoing case, many of which Apple believes have lead to the majority of the success that Samsung has achieved in the mobile phone industry. The following patents are those found in the claim made by that Apple against Samsung on April 15, 2011(Goodwin):
● Utility Patent 134: This patent relates to how a messaging or chatting conversation is displayed on Applies device. The patent explains it as “A method and an apparatus are provided for controlling a graphical user interface to display information related to a communication session. Information relating to data produced by a first participant to the communication session is displayed on a first display unit, wherein the information produced by the first participant is displayed at a first position on the first display unit.”(Goodwin, KnowYourMobile)”
● Utility Patent 163: This patent involves double-tapping to zoom and double-tapping to center text. Apple owns the patent for these features and Samsung violated it on twelve devices.
● Utility Patent 172: Specifically, this patent deals with “method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations.” This includes auto-complete typing on the iPhone.
● Utility Patent 381: Also known as the “rubber band patent,” this one is the feature where if a user scrolls beyond the edge of the page, the screen will automatically bounce back to a normal view of the page. Samsung was found guilty of violating this one on twenty-one of their phones.
● Utility Patent 414: This patent deals with “asynchronous data synchronization among multiple devices.” An example found within the patent registration is “one user-level non-synchronization processing thread may include operations to access a first database which is synchronized by the at least one synchronization processing thread during a synchronization operation between the first database on a first processing system and a second database on a second data processing system"(Freedman).
● Utility Patent 502: When a user begins entering text, a graphical user interface appears that shows a historical list of potential input. The user can select one of these suggestions on the list rather than typing out his or her query.
● Utility Patent 604: This patent is known as the “Siri” patent and refers to an “invention that provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information” (Goodwin, KnowYourMobile).
● Utility Patent 647: This patent registers “A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface.” An example of this patent can be found when a user searches a business in an iPhone’s web browser. The system in this patent parses the returned information from the query and is able to recognize phone numbers and addresses and provide the user with a menu that allows them to call the business directly (by opening the “phone” application) or get directions to the business (by opening the “maps” application) (Goodwin, KnowYourMobile).
● Utility Patent 721: This patent covers any gesture used to unlock a phone. This includes the traditional “slide to unlock” gesture.
● Utility Patent 760: An iPhone creates a list of missed calls for a user. This patent covers Apple’s handling of user checking their missed calls. A user can select one of the items on the list and that action will lead to the contact information for that missed call.
● Utility Patent 828: This patent kind of acts as an umbrella patent for all the gestures that Apple’s iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad devices can record and interpret. The abstract of the patent describes the system as an “Apparatus and methods are disclosed for simultaneously tracking multiple finger and palm contacts as hands approach, touch, and slide across a proximity-sensing, multi-touch surface. Identification and classification of intuitive hand configurations and motions enables unprecedented integration of typing, resting, pointing, scrolling, 3D manipulation, and handwriting into a versatile, ergonomic computer input device”(Goodwin, KnowYourMobile).
● Utility Patent 915: iPhones know the difference when users are using one finger and two fingers. This patent defines that distinguishability in fingers touching the screen. An example of this would be using two fingers to zoom in or out. Samsung violated this on twenty-one phones.
● Utility Patent 959: This patent covers “universal interfaces for retrieval of information” in a system. In essence, this protects one interface that is able to access information from a number of different locations through various techniques.
● Utility Patent 134: This patent relates to how a messaging or chatting conversation is displayed on Applies device. The patent explains it as “A method and an apparatus are provided for controlling a graphical user interface to display information related to a communication session. Information relating to data produced by a first participant to the communication session is displayed on a first display unit, wherein the information produced by the first participant is displayed at a first position on the first display unit.”(Goodwin, KnowYourMobile)”
● Utility Patent 163: This patent involves double-tapping to zoom and double-tapping to center text. Apple owns the patent for these features and Samsung violated it on twelve devices.
● Utility Patent 172: Specifically, this patent deals with “method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations.” This includes auto-complete typing on the iPhone.
● Utility Patent 381: Also known as the “rubber band patent,” this one is the feature where if a user scrolls beyond the edge of the page, the screen will automatically bounce back to a normal view of the page. Samsung was found guilty of violating this one on twenty-one of their phones.
● Utility Patent 414: This patent deals with “asynchronous data synchronization among multiple devices.” An example found within the patent registration is “one user-level non-synchronization processing thread may include operations to access a first database which is synchronized by the at least one synchronization processing thread during a synchronization operation between the first database on a first processing system and a second database on a second data processing system"(Freedman).
● Utility Patent 502: When a user begins entering text, a graphical user interface appears that shows a historical list of potential input. The user can select one of these suggestions on the list rather than typing out his or her query.
● Utility Patent 604: This patent is known as the “Siri” patent and refers to an “invention that provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information” (Goodwin, KnowYourMobile).
● Utility Patent 647: This patent registers “A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface.” An example of this patent can be found when a user searches a business in an iPhone’s web browser. The system in this patent parses the returned information from the query and is able to recognize phone numbers and addresses and provide the user with a menu that allows them to call the business directly (by opening the “phone” application) or get directions to the business (by opening the “maps” application) (Goodwin, KnowYourMobile).
● Utility Patent 721: This patent covers any gesture used to unlock a phone. This includes the traditional “slide to unlock” gesture.
● Utility Patent 760: An iPhone creates a list of missed calls for a user. This patent covers Apple’s handling of user checking their missed calls. A user can select one of the items on the list and that action will lead to the contact information for that missed call.
● Utility Patent 828: This patent kind of acts as an umbrella patent for all the gestures that Apple’s iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad devices can record and interpret. The abstract of the patent describes the system as an “Apparatus and methods are disclosed for simultaneously tracking multiple finger and palm contacts as hands approach, touch, and slide across a proximity-sensing, multi-touch surface. Identification and classification of intuitive hand configurations and motions enables unprecedented integration of typing, resting, pointing, scrolling, 3D manipulation, and handwriting into a versatile, ergonomic computer input device”(Goodwin, KnowYourMobile).
● Utility Patent 915: iPhones know the difference when users are using one finger and two fingers. This patent defines that distinguishability in fingers touching the screen. An example of this would be using two fingers to zoom in or out. Samsung violated this on twenty-one phones.
● Utility Patent 959: This patent covers “universal interfaces for retrieval of information” in a system. In essence, this protects one interface that is able to access information from a number of different locations through various techniques.
Samsung's Counter-Suit
In response to the Apple’s claims, Samsung countersued Apple, citing that the company infringed on several of their patents with several of their devices. The claim, made by Samsung on April 22, states that Apple, Inc. violated their ‘460, ‘516, ‘711, ‘893,’ and ‘941 patents within many of their devices (iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches). The patents that Samsung claimed Apple infringed upon relate to “3G communication standards, email transmission methodology, switching between photo and gallery modes, and background music playback functionality.” (Lowe, The Verge)
A Comparison of Samsung's Products Before and After the Release of the iPhone
Click on images to be taken directly to our source for these images.