The eventual resolution of last year’s big patent trial between Apple and Samsung is one step closer after Samsung was denied a retrial over one of the patents concerned: the ‘bounce-back’ or ‘rubber-banding’ effect when a user scrolls past the end of a document.
At the trial, which concluded a year ago tomorrow, each company accused the other of infringing on a range of patents … Expand Expanding Close
While this non-final decision is not binding, there is a possibility that Judge Koh will be persuaded by this to grant Samsung’s Rule 50 (“overrule-the-jury”) motion to the extent it relates to the ‘381 patent. Even if Judge Koh is hesitant to overrule the jury on this and skeptical of a non-final action, the reexamination process will continue during the Federal Circuit appellate proceedings, so if the non-final findings concerning claim 19 are affirmed in subsequent Office actions, they will have more weight. And even after the appeals process, a subsequent final rejection of the relevant patent claim would make the patent unenforceable going forward.
The report noted an anonymous third-party challenged the validity of the patent earlier this year by requesting a re-examination (Google looks up into space, begins whistling):
In late May, Scott Daniels, the author of the WHDA Reexamination Alert blog, discovered some new anonymous attacks on this patent and another famous Apple patent. I reported and commented on these findings. At the time I already listed the prior art references on which that ex parte reexamination request was based.
