Dutch judge says Apple's 'slide-to-unlock' patent is likely invalid

Legal

Just one day after ordering a preliminary injunction blocking the sale of multiple Samsung smartphones, a Dutch judge has said that at least one patent Apple is suing the South Korean company over is probably invalid. The judge ruled on Wednesday that Samsung’s GALAXY S II, GALAXY S and GALAXY Ace smartphones infringe on Apple patents. Regarding one of the patents Apple claims Samsung is infringing, however, FOSS Patents reveals that the judge is not sold on its validity, calling the patent — which covers the “slide-to-unlock” feature on Apple’s iPhone, iPad and iPod touch — “obvious.” What’s more, Swedish phone manufacturer Neonode released a Windows CE phone in Europe that featured a slide-to-unlock mechanism before Apple even filed its patent in late December 2005. The only difference between Apple’s implementation and Neonode’s is that Apple added a sliding graphic to the screen that follows the user’s finger while sliding. Neonode’s unlock mechanism did not include such a graphic, though the judge feels its addition is inconsequential in this case. “The Dutch judge concluded that the Neonode N1m already implemented the entirety of Apple’s claimed invention with only one difference remaining: Apple’s slide-to-unlock patent also claims an unlock image that moves along with the finger as the sliding gesture is performed,” Florian Mueller wrote on FOSS Patents. “But that difference didn’t convince the judge that Apple was entitled to a patent. He said that the use of an unlock image was ‘obvious’ (in Dutch he said it was ‘lying on the hand’ in terms of ‘not far to seek’).”

Read

45 Comments
  • Anonymous

    The most important thing here to remember is that “Apple” is a dumb name for a company.

    • DaHarder

      No dumber than a lot of company names, though it’s difficult to argue that iPad is a pretty comical name for any gadget, in addition to it sounding way too much like iPod when pronounced by almost anyone with an accent.

      Still… It’s not the name of the company that really matters – it’s the gadgets they sell.

      Anyway… If these judges ever come to their senses and gain some knowledge as to the nature of the modern tech industry, all of these silly ‘look & feel’ violation claims will be quickly dismissed as the anti-cmpetitive nonsense they obviously are.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly.  Google isn’t a dumb name at all, and “Micro Soft” communicates power.  ”Samsung” translates to “Three Stars” and LG originally stood for “Lucky Goldstar.”  And Bing? They are all dumb names.

      • Anonymous

        Somebody isn’t happy that their boy toy is getting picked on.

      • Anonymous

        What are you talking about?  I was commenting on the oddities of tech company names in general. 

        I’m growing a bit tired of how sensitive everyone is about phones.   Why are you being so rude?  Are you like this in real life?

    • Commerce James

      It was originally Apple Corps, owned by the Beatles.  Lawsuits ensued… oh the irony…

      “So, we’ve got this thing called ‘Apple’ which is going to be records, films, and electronics – which all tie-up.” – John Lennon, The Tonight Show, May 14, 1968

    • Anonymous

      2 days later and they STILL haven’t seen fit to fix their initial post on this story. why haven’t they gone back and read what the judgement actually said? Samsung was found to be infringing on one patent and the other the slide unlock was deemed invalid due to prior art. not the other way around as BGR has it. and all of the trade dress claims were held as invalid because of the minimalist styling they use you could say almost anything infringes. 

  • Anonymous

    I am pretty sure soon , Apple will have a patent that would prevent others from wiping their own screens.

    • frhh189

      +1

  • Anonymous

    Nothing should be patentable. Everything should be free for all to use as they please.

    • http://twitter.com/jbwvii JamesBruceWilsonVII

      You’re an idiot

      • Anonymous

        I just patented “You’re an idiot”, you owe me 100 bucks.

      • Anonymous

        I patented your butthole

      • Shanghai Dan

        @Biotechnology2020:disqus Rumor has it that it, too, can be opened with just a swipe of the finger…

    • Anonymous

      If you love a company that you have no affiliation with so much that you will run around the net and pose as a fan of their competition; what would you do to a women who breaks up with you?

    • Anonymous

      Something that actually represents true progress should be patentable.  The problem is people keep patenting things that are not progress.  Using a finger on an all touch screen phone in place of a cursor is not progress.  The first all touch screen phone might be progress, but navigating replacing the cursor should not be.
      Most of what Apple is suing over is not “progress”.

    • Joe Butler

      You are such a pathetic iDiot Goofan.  How you taking your beloved master Steve Jobs stepping down?  Need some tissues reverse-troll?

  • http://twitter.com/Labchuk Bryan Labchuk

    maybe even ‘at your finger tip’ 

  • http://twitter.com/ltamake Link Tamake

    I lol’d at the Bing ad that said “Apple” in the search box.

    • http://www.twitter.com/wixostrix WixosTrix

      Bing is not in competition with Apple.

      • Scott

        He never said it was. Is reading comprehension really that difficult? 

      • http://www.twitter.com/wixostrix WixosTrix

        I didn’t say he did either. I was just making a statement and also in fact could have made him realize they weren’t, in that space if he didn’t know. I don’t know him. I guess I could have looked at his Disqus activity to try to assess if he possibly didn’t know. But I had no reason to believe he didn’t since he’s on a tech focused site. Maybe you could have tried to comprehending that I could have just been making a neutral statement. Subject: [bgr] Re: Dutch judge says Apple’s ‘slide-to-unlock’ patent is likely invalid

  • Doug Slezak

    These patent lawsuits are an absolute JOKE!  Everyone suing everyone else.  Can’t we just get along for once?

  • Anonymous

    Oh, Neonode, so much promise wasted…

    I actually got ahold of an N1m a couple of years after it was first launched because I loved the idea of it so much.
    It was a nice phone when it worked …WHEN it worked.

    • http://twitter.com/brianchau Brian Chau

      Maybe Neonode should sue Apple for patent infringement then and make some money. This whole patent business is getting out of control.

      • Anonymous

        That would require Neonode to magically go un-bust, so I can’t see that happening.

  • http://JonaSyon.com Jona Sy

    Foiled by prior art. Who’d have thought somebody thought of anything before Apple o_O

  • Anonymous

    Does anyone else see the major deal in this legal precedent? If the judge is dismissing slide to unlock based on the grounds of “it basically existed before Apple did it, and Apple just added/changed graphics”, and that the UI element was “obvious”, doesn’t that kind of null a LAARRRRRRRRGE portion of Apple’s patents?

    • Booboolala2000

      It does. The same judge threw out the charge that apple claimed the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was copying its design. He said that since the ipad had such a minimal design that there was no design to protect.

  • Drew

    Does the research department at Apple only go back to 2007?? How did they not know they were copying something that was already implemented in 2005?? FFS, do your homework.

    • http://www.facebook.com/marlon.marlon Marlon

      Because the point here, and for some odd reason is lost on a majority of the people arguing the validity of these types of patents, is that quite a few of these things are built independently.  That’s why so many of them can still be considered obvious.  Because it was obvious to more than one group of people, someone just got a patent on it because they got around to it first, I’m don’t think that’s a valid reason for a patent.  That’s not to say some things aren’t blatant copying, but in some cases it’s really just a case of someone got there first, not something that was innovative.

      • Anonymous

        another example to illustrate the point is independent scrolling within a web page.  If you move around a webpage on a modern webpage is moves like you would expect it.  But what if you went to say, google maps on that browser.  I believe someone made a patent that allows independent scrolling within a page, like being able to move the map around in google maps independent from the rest of the page when your finger hovers over it…

        Now is that kind of patent valid?  In my view, and all sensible non idiot views, no.  That is not a novel concept, it is an obvious one.  No one who came across the inability to independently scroll the map within the larger page would think that did not need to be implemented.  It is a case of someone being the first person to see a fallen trunk in the road, then patenting the notion of moving the trunk for better usability of the road.

        invalid, obvious, not special or unique, anyone would have come up with the same solution when the problem was encountered, like taking the log from the road.

    • Anonymous

      “How did they not know they were copying something that was already implemented in 2005??”

      Because Apple filed the patent for the slide to unlock in… 2005

      Also, if neonode never patented their stuff and they made no waves in the market, how would anyone be expected to know about it?

  • Anonymous

    Apple has way more invalid patents than any other company.

  • Coppakosh

    So that means apple should be paying them royalties. Lol. Am happy at this ruling. You can’t always have it your way, and if they keep suing for junk then am sure more will be uncovered. What that baffles me is why I’m the first place they got the patent for something that was never theirs, just to show how broken and stupid that patent office is. Show them a cheque with zeros and anything is yours

  • Anonymous

    I’m going to unlock my cock in that judges mouth.

  • Captain Obvious

    Ohhhh snap!!!! Mr. Iamsogoddamnfullofmyself will probably sue the Dutch court system claiming they own the patent to invalid.

  • Anonymous

    So it has been an interesting couple of weeks in the patent wars between Apple and Samsung.

    The first being the court ordered injunction against sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia. This hasn’t done so much as hurt Samsung, but has helped it get overwhelming publicity for its expected release in early September.

    Then there was Apple’s case against Samsung in the Netherlands which has now seen Apple win against the Smartphone manufacturer with the Courts coming close to banning the Galaxy S, Galaxy SII & Galaxy Ace from being sold within the European Union.

    But what did Apple really win?

    The only patent upheld by the courts is patent 868, which addresses the scrolling between photo’s on a touchscreen (and how it bounces back after a short swipe). All other claims by Apple such as Samsung copying look & feel and duplicating swipe to unlock were deemed to not infringe. The LG Prada has the iPhone look & feel beat as it was released in 2007 before the iPhone. The lockscreen claims were covered with the relatively unknown Neonode N1m, which had the same lockscreen implementation back in 2005. The operating system likeness was defended citing the Nokia 7710, which had a grid style layout.

    Samsung said at the end of the case it plans to remedy the gallery similarities through a Software update sent out over the air and it won’t affect any Samsung Galaxy sales in Europe.

    So this could have been a bad move by Apple at the end of the day. It now means there is precedence set with their claims of others stealing likeness and could help to overturn other court cases between Apple and Android manufacturers in other countries. The judge also mentions that by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection.

    It’s a miniscule victory for Apple, but could be a much larger victory for Android partners around the world, especially with recent news of Steve Jobs stepping down as CEO of Apple.

    Source: OSNews

  • Anonymous

    gayphone 1 has replaced iphone 5. next.

  • http://www.winniekepala.com WinnieKepala

    I agree that all these patent infringement lawsuits are ridiculous. So what if you invented it, everyone sharing your invention is a good thing.

    Also, this is a patent infringement hearing. They’re discussing validity of the patent now? It should’ve been done earlier where the patent should not have been approved in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    For those looking for a more accurate English translation of “in Dutch he said it was ‘lying on the hand’ in terms of ‘not far to seek’” the English equivalent is “obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.”

    Meaning it would’ve been obvious if you thought about it long enough. Absolute kudos to Apple for thinking about it first, but the patent system is supposed to reward innovation, not just the first person to file a patent. Putting a layer of elegance on something, while important and useful, is not necessarily innovative.

    I’m quite interested to see whether there’s a trend of pushback in general on all these software/tech patents, or whether these are just going to be isolated incidents. I know everyone likes to claim that everyone is copying everyone else, but that’s a good thing. When everyone is copying and one-upping, you have to innovate and improve at an ever-increasing pace to maintain your position.
    Who wins when that happens? We do, fandroids and iTrolls. We do.

  • Notadot

    Finally… this judge used some common sense! I ‘m sure if Mr. Jobs was the CEO of Boeing or any other airplane company, he would have sued the other airplane makers for building airplanes with a tubular fuselage with wings, engines and an emphanage… crybaby! Complaintbox!

  • Epgomez

    Now sue apple on the notification bar when ios 5 comes out. Stupid patents.

  • Anonymous

    BGR wishes Apple would patent “hump to unlock”. Two birds, one stone!

  • http://dirtystep.tumblr.com dirtystep

    Seems that the good artist copy, great artist steal policy applies in Apple

blog comments powered by Disqus