Roger Fingas
A U.S. federal appeals court on Wednesday tossed a $533 million verdict in favor of patent holder Smartflash, which in an earlier court battle had argued that Apple violated its data storage concepts by way of iTunes.
A three-judge panel ruled that the Smartflash patents were too "abstract" and didn't sufficiently describe an actual invention, according to Reuters. The panel suggested that in the original court case, a Texas federal judge should simply have declared the patents invalid.
Smartflash was unlikely to achieve a positive outcome, as critical decisions since its initial victory in Feb. 2015 have gone against it.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a damages retrial in July of that year, citing faulty jury instructions. In June 2016, some Smartflash patents were invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the same reasons used in today's ruling.
Indeed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could simply have referred to the USPTO decision, but went a step further in suggesting that Gilstrap should have taken action.
Smartflash has been described as a "patent troll," asserting patents without making use of them in any commercial products. It first filed suit against Apple in May 2013, claiming that in 2000 the company's founder — Patrick Racz — had shared his ideas with a technologist who went on to become a senior Apple director.
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Christine McKee
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
14 Comments
Rats!!!
I was just about to apply for a patent myself, for, "computer thingy",
so that I could start suing everybody.
Seriously though, I don't think this: "Smartflash has been described as a "patent troll," asserting patents without making use of them in any commercial products",
is all it takes to make a patent troll...I can see where it would be aggravating to be nibbled at by a non-producing entity, but, on the other hand,
the term 'intellectual "property"' isn't accidental.
I do think it's legitimate to own and protect a very specific idea - it's kind of the same concept as literary or musical copyrights -
but I think sufficient specificity isn't always being required -as it certainly should be - in these cases,
when decided by non-technically oriented juries and jurists.
Just wait until my patent for storing media compressed as suggestively vague tunes and/or images that float around in your head. Then I'll sue everyone for violating my patent. That and the one for binocular recording of visual images, conversion to electrical signals and storage in a bio-chemical colloid. You'll have to pay me every time you look at something!
I can't see how my plan can fail!
"I do think it's legitimate to own and protect a very specific idea " is accurate, but the fact USPT has invalidated some of their patents says they weren't specific enough while also chalking up yet another example of the need for patent reform in this country. Maybe someday we can quit asking "How'd they ever get a patent on THAT?!" while watching companies' attorney's fees decline as a result. Since attorney's fees are a cost component of every product we buy, that should be good for us as consumers!
Go after SmartFlash with attorneys fees and for wasting everyone's time. They should be sued into oblivion. Trolls.
Nicely done, Apple lawyers.