Court Tells USPTO It Can't Limit Continuation Patents

from the so-much-for-that-plan dept

Back in November, a court blocked the Patent Office from phasing in new rules that would limit continuations on patents. The practice, which has been widely abused by some patent holders to expand the scope of an existing patent to cover newer technologies, has been a problem for quite some time. So, in an effort to shore things up, the USPTO decided on its own to limit how many continuations a patent holder could file on a single patent. The block in November was temporary, while the court reviewed the overall question of whether these new limits were legal -- and now the decision has been released saying that the USPTO has no right to make such changes. The decision actually does make sense. While excessive continuations can be a serious problem, the USPTO shouldn't be allowed to run off and make its own rules. The blanket limitation on continuations was (yet again) an attempt to deal with a symptom rather than take on the root causes of problems in the patent system. So, while it may have helped in the short term, it wouldn't have done much overall, and it's better not to have the USPTO randomly making up its own rules.

Filed Under: continuation patents, patents, uspto

Apple Sued Yet Again For Patent Infringement Over iTunes/iPod

from the promoting-what-kind-of-progress,-exactly? dept

Apple has been sued over and over again by companies claiming to hold patents on some of the most basic concepts found in Apple's iTunes and iPod offerings. However, given Apple's seeming willingness to pay up to settle such suits, it really shouldn't be a surprise that more companies are coming up with even more ridiculous patents to sue over. The latest is from a company named ZapMe which claims to hold a couple of patents that it says covers iTunes and the iPod. Of course the company is demanding an injunction and damages, though it seems unlikely that a court would ever grant an injunction. As for the patents themselves one was granted back in 2006 and the other came earlier this week. The newer patent is actually a "continuation" patent, a process that has been widely abused by some patent holders to adjust older patents to make sure they cover newer technologies. The Patent Office has been trying to put some limits on continuations, but a court recently wouldn't allow them to put the new rules in place. Take a read through the patent itself and explain, please, how this possibly served the purpose of furthering innovation?

Filed Under: continuation patents, ipod, itunes, patents
Companies: apple