Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Apple Inc. v. ITC

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

August 7, 2013, Decided

2012-1338

Opinion

 [***1865]   [*1359]  Moore, Circuit Judge.

Apple appeals from the final decision of the International  [**2] Trade Commission (ITC) that  [***1866]  the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 ('607 patent) are invalid and that Motorola does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 ('828 patent). Apple challenges the ITC's claim construction and its determinations of obviousness, anticipation, and noninfringement. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and vacate-in-part the ITC's decision and remand for further proceedings.

Background

This patent case involves smartphone touchscreens. The '607 patent discloses a touch panel with a transparent capacitive sensing medium that can detect multiple touches at once. '607 patent, at [57]. To achieve the multitouch functionality, the touch panel employs a matrix of electrodes connected to circuits that measure the change in charge that occurs as a result of pressure applied to the screen. Id. col.5 l.27-col.6 l.7. The pressure-induced change occurs because the electrode rows are in a different layer than the electrode columns. Id. col.5 l.15-col.6 l.18. When a user touches the screen, the pressure applied at each intersection point causes charge to flow between the electrodes at that node. Id. Measuring circuits  [**3] connected to the electrodes scan the matrix and measure the displaced charge at each node. Id. By detecting these changes, the touch panel can determine if and where a user has touched the screen. Id.

The '607 patent also discloses how to make the touchscreen transparent. It teaches constructing the electrodes with  [*1360]  indium tin oxide (ITO), a transparent material. '607 patent, col.12 ll.35-52. But simply forming the electrodes from ITO may not render the matrix invisible because the ITO electrodes tend to be less transparent than gaps in the electrode matrix. Id. col.14 l.60-col.15 l.23. To remedy this problem, the patent teaches the use of "dummy" ITO pads to fill in gaps in the matrix. Id. col.15 ll.8-24. By inserting these pads in the matrix gaps, the matrix has the optical properties of a uniform sheet of ITO and thus becomes invisible to the user. Id.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

725 F.3d 1356 *; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16282 **; 107 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1864 ***; 35 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1921; 2013 WL 4007535

APPLE INC., Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Intervenor.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-750.

In re Certain Mobile Devices, 2012 ITC LEXIS 627 (Int'l Trade Comm'n, Mar. 16, 2012)

Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND VACATED-IN-PART.

CORE TERMS

touches, detection, transparent, ellipse, matrix, prior art, discloses, invention, anticipates, electrodes, screen, finger, patent, touchscreen, mathematically, provisional, scanning, lines, capacitance, disclosure, steps, iPhone, parameters, innovation, multitouch, skill, secondary, nodes, asserted claim, algorithm

International Trade Law, US International Trade Commission Proceedings, Judicial Review, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Substantial Evidence, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, General Overview, Nonobviousness, Evidence, Fact & Law Issues, Anticipation & Novelty, Description in Publications, Elements & Tests, Ordinary Skill Standard, Graham Test, Secondary Considerations, Prima Facie Obviousness