posted on Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:47 pm
This is a design patent. Not a utility patent.
Design patents are very specific and are very hard to infringe upon (unless the item in question is a blatant knock-off -eg that Chinese company that tried to sell an iPhone 5 look-a-like before the iPhone 5 was released). The process of awarding design patents does involve verification of prior art, but unless the prior art is virtually identical (and not just similar) they are not relevant. This would make older tablet attempts from HP and Microsoft from the early 2000s not very relevant as prior art, even though they do share sort of similar designs with iPads, etc. Because of this, even though Apple was awarded this particular design patent, I'm not sure how well it will help them in court cases against companies with similar looking products - ie, Samsung, etc). So this is likely mostly much ado about nothing. All biases aside, this is likely why Apple lost the UK Samsung Galaxy Tablet cases. All the judge had to do was acknowledge that the Samsung Galaxy Tab was not identical to the design patent(s) held for the iPad. Which they did.
The California ruling was (I think) based on both design and utility patents. To me, utility patents are much more problematic in this field as they can be exploited much more easily (and this is where the USPTO needs reform the most). Utility patents are based on functionality (ie, drop-down notificaiton tab, swipe to unlock, etc). It is much more ambiguous to determine which prior functionality across multiple different platforms and operating systems are relevant...