Apple has been sued for Patent Infringement regarding their 'Secure Enclave'
Apple files for an extension to their Siri trademark that covers kitchen appliances & more while winning 12 Apple Watch Ultra design patents

Apple's attempt to have key patent claims in the MPH Technologies Infringement case dismissed were denied by the Patent Appeals Board

10.0z Patently Legal

In 2018 Patently Apple posted a report titled " A Finnish Patent Troll Sues Apple Claiming that iMessage and FaceTime infringe 8 of their (Acquired) Patents." Apparently MPH Technologies must have won their case because six months later Apple began petitioning to nix MPH-owned patents in March 2019.

The case has been bouncing around the courts since then until Thursday when the U.S. While some claims were found to be unpatentable, the Patent and Trademark Office, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board published its Final Written Decision on Remand Determining Challenged Claims 4-6 Not Shown Unpatentable.

The introduction of the Final Decision in-part states: "This case returns on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. OY. In our prior Final Written Decision in this proceeding, we determined that by a preponderance of the evidence Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) (i) did not prove that claims 1–6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,620,810 B2 are unpatentable, and (ii) proved that claim 7 of the ’810 patent is unpatentable. On Petitioner’s appeal, the Federal Circuit held that we erred in our construction for “encrypted” messages, and as a result, vacated our judgment of no unpatentability for claims 1–6 and remanded to the Board for further proceedings.

After the Federal Circuit’s decision, and before the mandate issued, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer which states that Patent Owner “hereby disclaims and dedicates to the public the entirety of claims 1–3 of the ’810 Patent.” Accordingly, claims 1–3 are no longer part of this proceeding. And for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner [Apple Inc.] does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–6 are unpatentable."

Below is a copy of the Judgement's Final Written Decision in this case.

Final Written Decision on Remand by Jack Purcher on Scribd

10.0F2 - Patently Legal


The comments to this entry are closed.