Samsung Seeks Technical Knock-Out of Apple Patents

Samsung has filed an application with the Federal Court of Australia, under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, for a review of decisions by the Australian Patent Office to grant four of the patents currently being asserted against it by Apple in the ongoing Australian litigation.

The application, and details the patents in question, have been reported in the past days by both iTnews and ZDNet.

If Samsung’s application is successful, it could see the four patents, all of which relate to touch-screen functionality (including the famous ‘slide-to-unlock’ patent), declared null and void by the Federal Court.

In our opinion, however, Samsung’s prospects of success are at best even, and probably somewhat less than that.  There are, as we shall explain, a number of hurdles which Samsung must leap in order to prevail, and should it fall at any one of them then its whole case will fail.

 Read full article ► 

Tags: Apple-v-Samsung, Double patenting, Judicial review

Double Patenting - impermissible, but not invalidating

Arbitron v Telecontrol Aktiengesellschaft [2010] FCA 302 (31 March 2010)

Summary: While it is technically impermissible under the Australian Patents Act 1990 for two patents to be granted to the same patentee in respect of the same invention, in the event that this should occur it is not fatal to the validity of either patent.

In this recent Australian case, Arbitron, Inc ("Arbitron") contended that Telecontrol Aktiengesellschaft ("Telecontrol") infringed Arbitron's Australian Patent No. 747044, relating to its "Portable People Meter" (PPM) technology.

Right: "No!!! I said portable people meter!"

The claims of the patent relate to a method of encoding a "signature" within the spectrum of an audio signal, which can then be decoded by a digital signal processor in a small battery operated device, that can be carried around by a ratings survey subject.  Or, in lay terms, a way of hiding a "secret code" in sound (such as radio or television broadcasts) that a clever electronic device can detect, but that is generally inaudible to people.  The idea is that when the portable meter detects a specific signature, it can then record the fact that the survey subject is listening to (or at least is in earshot of) a corresponding broadcast program.

 Read full article ► 

Tags: Australia, Double patenting, Patent law