The first case I looked at included Apple Vs Samsung where a panel of appeal judges overturned Apple's $120 million claim against Samsung regarding "how to turn phone numbers and other software 'structures' into links instead of copy pasting as well as slide to unlock and autocorrect functionality.
Patent Summary:
The first patent, 5,946,647 centered around the software structures, the second, 8,046,721 dealt with slide to unlock, and the third, 8,074,172 included the autocorrect functionality.
Claim Analysis:
For this claim analysis, I analyzed claim #1, out of 38 total claims. This patent also included 15 images and can be found here: http://www.google.com/patents/US8074172
The abstract of the case is also listed here to provide a high-level overview of the patent in question:
One aspect of the invention involves a method that includes: in a first area of the touch screen, displaying a current character string being input by a user with the keyboard; in a second area of the touch screen, displaying the current character string or a portion thereof and a suggested replacement for the current character string; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user activates a delimiter key on the keyboard; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user performs a first gesture on the suggested replacement displayed in the second area; and keeping the current character string in the first area if the user performs a second gesture on the current character string or the portion thereof displayed in the second area.
Claim #1:
1. A method, comprising:
at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display:
in a first area of the touch screen display, displaying a current character string being input by a user with the keyboard;
in a second area of the touch screen display that is between the first area and the keyboard, displaying the current character string or a portion thereof and a suggested replacement character string for the current character string on opposite sides of the second area;
replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement character string if the user activates a space bar key on the keyboard;
replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement character string if the user performs a first gesture on the suggested replacement character string displayed in the second area; and
keeping the current character string in the first area and adding a space if the user performs a second gesture in the second area on the current character string or the portion thereof displayed in the second area.
This first claim deals with displaying, replacing, and "keeping the current character string" and appears to have elements of spacing depending upon the user "perform[ing] a second gesture in the second area on the current character string".
Furthermore, the space bar also plays a role in this first claim as it indicates that the "user activates a space bar key" in order for "replacing the current character string".
For Samsung to have infringed, all these elements would have to have been true, with the suggestion, replacement, and spacing.
Example image included:
Hi Siddharth,
ReplyDeleteThanks for adding the links to the actual patent so we could see the images-- I find myself to be a more visual learner so the images definitely helped me to more clearly understand what the patent was! As a suggestion, I think it would have been nice to see a little more analysis in your own words what the claim was saying. Overall, great post!
Hi Siddharth,
ReplyDeleteI think that adding links to see the actual patents helped readers a lot. I like how you lay out what the claim #1 is and explain it fully. I would have thought Samsung infringed upon this patent initially; however, since you explained the suggestion, replacement, and spacing are different than what is on the actual claim, I see that Samsung did not infringe upon the patent. Good post!
Hi Siddharth,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post! The explanations you provided were really helpful in understanding the patent claim. The pictures really helped with this as well. I think that perhaps more analysis on your opinion about why this claim was invalid/why Samsung didn't infringe on the patent would be helpful, as I am not very familiar with the specific elements of Samsung's phone.