Didn't Apple say that OLED sucked big ones??????

[Aquila]

Replace, "something" with, "flexible oled screen".

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[androidluvr2]

Because this is a pattern with apple filing suit on patents the were granted for existing products and concepts that other companies developed...

Here is another point that will help you to understand why the above is not true.

In the US, ONLY the inventor(s) may apply for a patent. Now, the inventor(s) may and usually do have the contractual obligation to assign ownership of the patent application to their employers.

The applicant in a patent application is always a human being. A corporation may own the patent application, but they aren't the applicant. This is particular to the US, btw.

If you can show me a particular case you are referring to, I will try to clarify it for you.

 

[androidluvr2]

Replace, "something" with, "flexible oled screen".

Again, you need to look at the claims. That patent application is not claiming a flexible oled screen.

United States Patent Application: 0130076612

And again, that is just a patent application, not a patent, and I didn't read past the first claim, but there is no way that first claim is patentable and it won't issue.

 

[Aquila]

This thread is about Apple filing for a flexible oled, which already exists. There were many prior examples were brought into the limelight with the Samsung trial last year.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

EDIT: Okay, this is an oversimplification and I apologize for missing it. Rereading the claim makes in the context of the diagram it seems like they're only patenting the shape and not the technology; however when given an opportunity on the application to reference related art, they decline. The satire story still stands, but I agree I was wrong about this specific patent application having a prior art issue.

 

[androidluvr2]

This thread is about Apple filing for a flexible oled, which already exists.

Did you read the claims? I gave you the link to the patent application. Apple IS NOT filing a patent application on a flexible oled with this particular patent application.

Claims 1-10 are device claims and don't even mention oled. I am 100% certain claim 1 will not issue so don't get yourself worked up about that claim.

Claims 11-17 are method claims about a way to manufacture a device and claim 12 mention that the display of that device can be an AMOLED. But it is a method of manufacturing claim, not a device claim.

Claims 18-21 are for an apparatus that is used to manufacture a device. Claim 19 mentions that the display of the device can be an AMOLED. But the claims are for an apparatus used to manufacture the device, not for the device.

 

[Aquila]

Did you read the claims? I gave you the link to the patent application. Apple IS NOT filing a patent application on a flexible oled with this particular patent application.

Claims 1-10 are device claims and don't even mention oled. I am 100% certain claim 1 will not issue so don't get yourself worked up about that claim.

Claims 11-17 are method claims about a way to manufacture a device and claim 12 mention that the display of that device can be an AMOLED. But it is a method of manufacturing claim, not a device claim.

Claims 18-21 are for an apparatus that is used to manufacture a device. Claim 19 mentions that the display of the device can be an AMOLED. But the claims are for an apparatus used to manufacture the device, not for the device.

Yes, I read it the first time but reread it this evening and edited the last post accordingly.

 

[androidluvr2]

I agree I was wrong about this specific patent application having a prior art issue.

I am certain that claim 1 has a prior art issue. There may be other claims that have prior art issues, too.

 

[androidluvr2]

however when given an opportunity on the application to reference related art, they decline.

Where are you getting this from? You would have to have access to the patent application file to know whether or not they filed an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), which is where they have to list the prior art they are aware of.

 

[idaute]

I am not really following what you are trying to say but I will point out some basic info that might help clear it up for you.

First - you don't file a patent. You file a patent application.

Second - you have 1 year from the first offer for sale of an invention to get a US patent application on file. If you file later than 1 year and the patent office is aware of the offer for sale, your patent application will not be allowed. This is called the on-sale bar (35 USC 102(b)). If you know about the offer for sale and don't let the patent office know about the offer for sale and get a patent, your patent is invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

Third - if 2 patents have claims that cover the same invention, the claims of the later filed patent are invalid (by later filed, I mean later priority date).

Guess I will have to give a lesson on patent practice. First, you are right, you don't file a patent, you file a patent application. With respect to your second point, a company is completely insane to withhold information concerning their sales. If they do, they can be sued for treble damages under the anti-trust laws (they obtained an illegal monopoly by their practice of withholding essential information about their sales from the Patent Office). Now, in that anti-trust suit, if you cannot prove that the company was actually aware of the sales (say that they had sent a device to an entity that was not supposed to sell it but rather use it for further experiments), then as androidluvr2 says, the patent if it actually issues becomes invalid. Now, as to your third point if two patent applications are filed claiming the same invention, an interference is declared. Prior to March 1 of this year when a new law came into effect that would not effect the patent application in question, the inventor showing the first conception of the invention combined with diligence in proceeding to reduction to practice prevails. Under the new law, the first one to the Patent Office is going to win.

Androidluvr2, you just have to come to the conclusion that the word nothing in the other posters name gives adequate information as to what he or she knows about patents and patent procedure.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Aquila]

Guess I will have to give a lesson on patent practice. First, you are right, you don't file a patent, you file a patent application. With respect to your second point, a company is completely insane to withhold information concerning their sales. If they do, they can be sued for treble damages under the anti-trust laws (they obtained an illegal monopoly by their practice of withholding essential information about their sales from the Patent Office). Now, in that anti-trust suit, if you cannot prove that the company was actually aware of the sales (say that they had sent a device to an entity that was not supposed to sell it but rather use it for further experiments), then as androidluvr2 says, the patent if it actually issues becomes invalid. Now, as to your third point if two patent applications are filed claiming the same invention, an interference is declared. Prior to March 1 of this year when a new law came into effect that would not effect the patent application in question, the inventor showing the first conception of the invention combined with diligence in proceeding to reduction to practice prevails. Under the new law, the first one to the Patent Office is going to win.

Androidluvr2, you just have to come to the conclusion that the word nothing in the other posters name gives adequate information as to what he or she knows about patents and patent procedure.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

Thanks for the information. You're being incredibly rude with the personal attacks on me; and this is the 2nd time after people had already pointed that fact out. If you read above, I already conceded I made an error about this specific patent application having an issue with prior art, as I was confused about what they were claiming. What's the purpose or value add from the 2nd insult? Is there a way to politely convey information?

 

[androidluvr2]

With respect to your second point,

Everything I said in my second point was correct. The patent is both invalid and unenforceable for inequitable conduct. There may be additional issues, but I was addressing NiT's specific hypothetical.

Indeed, everything I said in all of my points was correct.

Now, as to your third point if two patent applications are filed claiming the same invention, an interference is declared.

My third point said nothing at all about patent applications. I was referring to patents. You don't have an interference between 2 patents.

In theory the patent office should catch the interfering claims prior to both applications issuing as patents and an interference should be declared so you should never get to this situation in theory. But it does and has happened before in reality.

I was simply addressing NiT's hypothetical in which 1 company has a patent on a product that it is selling and then a 2nd company comes in and patents the same thing and then enforces the patent. I was explaining the problems with his hypothetical.

 

[Aquila]

There is no reason we can't exchange information, opinions and ideas in a civil manner without resorting to insults. Misunderstanding something and being ignorant are two completely different things. You may have noticed my original post in this thread was a question and I haven't yet disagreed with someone providing an informative answer to that question. I wanted to know how this was NOT a prior art issue, and Androidluvr2 explained that. Why is it ignorant for a layman to ask for clarification? You may have noticed that I don't insult posters because their personal budget isn't mathematically optimized or because they're not a martial arts expert, because I don't expect everyone to be an expert on everything, or anything for that matter. It's highly ridiculous to insult someone for asking a question when you're the expert. If you didn't like the tone of my questions or the satirical blurb afterwards, that's one thing and I could appreciate that... but in matters of opinion of tastes, neither of us would be incorrect.

 

[idaute]

Everything I said in my second point was correct. The patent is both invalid and unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

My third point said nothing at all about patent applications. I was referring to patents. You don't have an interference between 2 patents.

In theory the patent office should catch the interfering claims prior to both applications issuing as patents and an interference should be declared so you should never get to this situation in theory. But it does and has happened before in reality.

I was simply addressing NiT's hypothetical in which 1 company has a patent on a product that it is selling and then a 2nd company comes in and patents the same thing and then enforces the patent. I was explaining the problems with his hypothetical.

The point about your second point is that you did not explain that the inequitable conduct would lead to an anti-trust suit being filed against the company. Treble damages under the anti-trust law is much more a deterrent to withholding information from the Patent Office than is the fact that the patent can be held invalid.

Yes, indeed, the Patent Office has inadvertently issued two patents for the same invention, but contrary to your assertion that you don't have an interference between two patents, you indeed do have such. Two patents have quite often been involved in interferences. In fact, there have been interference procedures involving three patents. Interferences were not restricted to patent applications. It will be interesting to see what happens to interference practice under the new law.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[androidluvr2]

There is no reason we can't exchange information, opinions and ideas in a civil manner without resorting to insults. Misunderstanding something and being ignorant are two completely different things.

Agreed, but I think you as well as others would have less gripes about the patent system if you understood a few key basic points. I really didn't want to get bogged down in anti-trust and interference issues, which are all important, but not the basic points.

First of all, in theory you cannot get a patent on an invention you were not the first to invent in the US. The US is a first to invent country so if you weren't first to invent something, even if you are issued a patent on it, your patent is invalid. .

However, an issued patent is presumed valid, so what that means is if you have an issued patent on something and you sue someone else for infringing that patent, they have to prove your patent is invalid by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard than a preponderance of the evidence. It's not impossible to do and indeed patents are found to be invalid all the time.

Again, if you cite to me the specific cases you are griping about, I might be able to better clarify the issues for you.

 

[idaute]

The US is a first to invent country so if you weren't first to invent something, even if you are issued a patent on it, your patent is invalid. .

To clarify, since March 1 of this year, the US is NOT a first to invent country. The US is now a first to the Patent Office country.

And, your blanket statement that "if you weren't the first to invent something, even if you are issued a patent, on it your patent is invalid" is not entirely correct even under the old law of first to invent. If the first inventor kept his invention secret and made no diligent effort to reduce the invention to practice, then the second inventor that does make that diligent effort to reduce the invention to practice will be granted a valid patent. Under the new law it is which one files first that will get the patent irrespective of who invented first.


Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[androidluvr2]

The point about your second point is that you did not explain that the inequitable conduct would lead to an anti-trust suit being filed against the company.

That didn't make my point incorrect. I was explaining basic points about the patent system, not anti-trust law. And when you add in all of these other details, the basic points get lost.

Yes, indeed, the Patent Office has inadvertently issued two patents for the same invention, but contrary to your assertion that you don't have an interference between two patents, you indeed do have such. Two patents have quite often been involved in interferences. In fact, there have been interference procedures involving three patents. Interferences were not restricted to patent applications.

This is how I understand it and if I am wrong, please link me to sources rather than just making statements. If 2 patent claims are interfering, the patent office does not have jurisdiction and an interference proceeding in the PTO cannot occur. However, the patent owners can fight it out in US district court but it is an action asking the court for a judgment of invalidity. As a prerequisite to this judgment of invalidity, a court must make a determination of an interference-in-fact otherwise the court has no jurisdiction. But that is just a prerequisite to invoke the court's jurisdiction to determine the validity of an issued patent.

BTW - all of this detail is just obscuring the basic point. The basic point is that if 2 patents issue with claims to the same invention, one of them is invalid. Technically they are called interfering patents and legally a court must make a determination of an interference-in-fact prior to a ruling of invalidity, but that doesn't change the bottom line - if they claim the same invention, one of them is invalid.

 

[androidluvr2]

To clarify, since March 1 of this year, the US is NOT a first to invent country. The US is now a first to the Patent Office country.

It's as of March 16th and it only applies to applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. But there are no issued patents that have been issued under this change yet and it will likely be a couple of years before any issue. So for any issued patent that exists today and likely for a couple of years from today, we are a first to invent country. At some point, there will be issued patents issuing from applications filed from March 16, 2013 on, but there aren't any right now and all of the US patents as of today are all held to the first to invent standard.

And, your blanket statement that "if you weren't the first to invent something, even if you are issued a patent, on it your patent is invalid" is not entirely correct even under the old law of first to invent. If the first inventor kept his invention secret and made no diligent effort to reduce the invention to practice, then the second inventor that does make that diligent effort to reduce the invention to practice will be granted a valid patent.

I also didn't get into the details of what exactly constitutes an offer for sale not primarily for experimental purposes and ready for patenting means in order to trigger the on-sale bar or the difference between a sale of the invention vs. a sale of the invention rights. But AGAIN I was not trying to get into every nuance of patent law but rather explain some basic points. When you get into this level of minutia to an audience that doesn't even understand basic points like the difference between a patent and a patent application and that it is the claims that matter, you lose them and they don't take away even the basic points.

 

[xlDeMoNiClx]

Thanks for the information. You're being incredibly rude with the personal attacks on me; and this is the 2nd time after people had already pointed that fact out. If you read above, I already conceded I made an error about this specific patent application having an issue with prior art, as I was confused about what they were claiming. What's the purpose or value add from the 2nd insult? Is there a way to politely convey information?

I think he just like to pretend he's all high and mighty in the patent world. For all we know he just read about patents on wikipedia before he posted.

This is from me, on my EVO 3D.

 

[idaute]

That didn't make my point incorrect. I was explaining basic points about the patent system, not anti-trust law. And when you add in all of these other details, the basic points get lost.

This is how I understand it and if I am wrong, please link me to sources rather than just making statements. If 2 patent claims are interfering, the patent office does not have jurisdiction and an interference proceeding in the PTO cannot occur. However, the patent owners can fight it out in US district court but it is an action asking the court for a judgment of invalidity. As a prerequisite to this judgment of invalidity, a court must make a determination of an interference-in-fact otherwise the court has no jurisdiction. But that is just a prerequisite to invoke the court's jurisdiction to determine the validity of an issued patent.

BTW - all of this detail is just obscuring the basic point. The basic point is that if 2 patents issue with claims to the same invention, one of them is invalid. Technically they are called interfering patents and legally a court must make a determination of an interference-in-fact prior to a ruling of invalidity, but that doesn't change the bottom line - if they claim the same invention, one of them is invalid.

Don't know exactly where you are coming from androidluvr2, but I am not being paid here to do legal research. That will be left to you. But your statement about a prerequisite to invoke a court's jurisdiction makes no sense. Patent law is federal law and federal courts have jurisdiction of all questions involving patent law. How two patents can get involved in an interference in the federal courts depends upon how the case arises. Either of the owners of the patents can proceed with a declaratory judgment action asking the court to determine who the valid first inventor is. The question of first inventor is determined by interference practice, and the court has to determine who was the legal first inventor. Naturally, that determination will determine which patent is valid. If either owner sues the other for patent infringement, then the sued party will defend by counterclaim that the inventor of the patent being sued on is not the first inventor. The court then must determine this question and again uses interference practice to make such a determination. It should be pointed out that the owner of the last issued patent has an initial burden to show that the filing date of the application for the second patent had to be less than one year from the issue date of the first patent. Otherwise there is a statutory bar and the owner of the second patent will get nowhere. Under the new law, it is evidently going to be more straight forward. Which ever patent application was filed first will prevail.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[androidluvr2]

For all we know he just read about patents on wikipedia before he posted.

I suspect he is a patent attorney. And the reason I suspect that is because he wants to get into all of the minutia/nuances of patent law.


For everyone else, I hope at least this came through all the minutia:

1) anyone can file a patent application on anything if they can pay the filing fee, doesn't mean what they have claimed is patentable;
2) you have to look at the claims to understand what someone is trying to patent (or in the case of an issued patent has patented);
3) just because the PTO issues a patent doesn't mean it is valid;
4) but if the PTO does issue a patent, it is presumed valid and an accused infringer must show by clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid to get it invalidated, and clear and convincing evidence means that the evidence of invalidity needs to be strong; and
5) if 2 patents issue and they cover the same invention, there is a problem there because both can't be valid.