More on “the Steve Jobs patent”

Matt Macari for The Verge:

The internet was abuzz yesterday with reports that Apple’s infamous “bounce-back” patent, US 7,469,381, was “tentatively invalidated” by the US Patent Office. That’s one of the patents Samsung was found to infringe, and any action by the USPTO will have major consequences. Unfortunately, all those reports were extremely premature —patents can’t be “tentatively invalid,” just like people can’t be “tentatively dead.”

Great explanation of what’s going on and the process involved.

  • Techpm

    Serial FUDster Florian Muller strikes again. People have to be very careful when quoting him and I’m glad The Verge explained it in real terms.

    Incidentally the third party lawyer firm (the one who requested the re-examination) shown in the order, Bryan Cave LLP, was registered as a lobbyist for Microsoft until last year.

  • lucascott

    Yes this is a very nice explanation.

    Even the USPTO can make errors. All this order has said is that they agree that this might be one of those times and perhaps the patent is invalid (because it never should have been granted) and thus it is worthy of review. So they put out a ruling that perhaps it should be invalidated and Apple then comes in and defends the patent with evidence that it was not obvious at that time, that it was unique enough to be a newly patentable item etc. for a patent this big such a review and defense should probably be part of the procedure before it is granted. And perhaps this is a step to that kind of system