Samsung Uses Recent SCOTUS Decision in Long-Running Patent Fight With Apple

Two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court gave a crushing blow to supposed patent trolls with last month's ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank, Samsung is trying to use that same ruling to knock out two claims by Apple in its long running feud over mobile device patents. The Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS Bank basically said that lower courts should be throwing out more cases that involve patents that are too abstract in nature to be legally valid.

Now Samsung is trying to use the ruling to invalidate two of Apple's patents: "swipe-to-unlock" and its universal search patent.

Samsung lawyers filed a brief asserting that the Supreme Court ruling invalidates the two Apple patents that scored the iPhone and iPad maker a second $120 million verdict against them earlier this year.

Apple's universal search and swipe-to-unlock patents are basic ideas that the Supreme Court rejected as unpatentable in its ruling, according Samsung lawyers. Samsung argues that both patents are attempts to "claim an abstract idea, implemented with generic computer functions that do not state any technical innovation."

Apple lawyers argue that Samsung shouldn't be allowed to even bring up an argument under the relevant area of law, Section 101 of the US patent code.

It will be interesting to see if this latest move by Samsung against Apple will work.

You can read Samsung's filing here (PDF).

This latest issue is awaiting a decision by the judge presiding over the case – U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh.

Source: Ars Technica

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Sleaker says:

    Dates are a bit off, it was actually a month and a half ago.  the ruling came down in mid-June and its almost august now.  

    Edit: I guess Samsung filed this on the 3rd of July so about 2 weeks after the initial ruling, but that was nearly a month ago, and not really stated in your write-up of the article.

    Is this old news? Was it missed by everyone? Or were the documents just released to the public? A bit more on when things transpired for clarity is always nice.


    Thanks for catching this one!

Leave a Reply