One Billion Dollars For Apple, For A Claim That Could Have Been Designed Around…
This post provides a link to patent 7,469,381, the “bounce back” patent, which is referred to as the ’381 patent. This post also provides a clean copy of claim 19, which is the claim that the jury found Samsung infringed. Finally, this post provides an annotated version of a portion of claim 19. The annotations may suggest how Samsung could have designed around the claim, rather than willfully infringe it…
Here’s a link to the ’381 “bounce back” patent.
Here’s a clean version of claim 19, which is the claim that the jury found Samsung infringed.
19. A device, comprising:
a touch screen display;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs,
wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the programs including:
instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document;
instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
instructions for translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement;
instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and
instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.
Here’s an annotated version of two elements that might have been a potentially useful design around. The portions being designed around are in bold, the potential design arounds are << bracketed in italics >>. The ease with which these claims could have been designed around is a caution to to claims drafters, who may wish to consider the effect of every word in their claims, and who may wish to consider viable alternatives to their claims. Companies that are aware of other companies products and patents may wish to consider designing around, rather than copying… Instead of getting worked up that you just got run over by a bull, consider how easy it would have been to have stayed out of the bullring by designing around.
instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached << display the area beyond the edge in response to determining that x% (but not all the way to the edge, x < 100%) of the electronic document has been reached>> while translating the electronic document in the first direction << temporarily stop the translation>> while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display
instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed << until y% of the area beyond the edge is no longer displayed, (take action when y < 100% of the area is gone)>> to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display
