Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Key to Samsung Lawsuit Preliminarily Invalidated - MacRumorsOpen MenuShow RoundupsShow Forums menuVisit ForumsOpen Sidebar
Skip to Content

Apple's 'Rubber Banding' Patent Key to Samsung Lawsuit Preliminarily Invalidated

FOSS Patents reports on a new court filing from Samsung revealing that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a preliminary decision ruling that Apple's "rubber banding" patent that was a key part of the $1 billion lawsuit against Samsung has been invalidated. While numerous other reviews and appeals will undoubtedly take place in the coming months, the preliminary ruling is certainly a blow to Apple's cases against Samsung and others.

In a non-final Office action the USPTO has declared all 20 claims of Apple's rubber-banding patent (U.S. Patent No, 7,469,381 invalid, including claim 19, which Apple successfully asserted against Samsung in the summer trial in California. In fact, claim 19 is one of several claims to be deemed invalid for two reasons, either one of which would be sufficient on its own.

uspto rubber banding invalid
The report notes that the rejection could influence Judge Lucy Koh to at least partially rule in favor of Samsung's requests that the jury's verdict be overturned by the court as having been improperly issued.

The patent rejection comes after an anonymous third party challenged the validity of the patent earlier this year, requesting a reexamination by the patent office. The rubber banding patent covers the ability for iOS content to "bounce back" when a user has scrolled to the top or bottom of a given page. The feature provides an aesthetically pleasing means of alerting the user that they have reached the end of the content rather than simply stopping abruptly, but the USPTO has now ruled that the feature does not qualify as novel in light of prior art on the matter. That prior art includes not only a European patent from AOL but also a previous Apple patent.

Popular Stories

iOS 27 Next to iPhone

Here's When iOS 27 Rolls Out Today in Every Time Zone [Update: It's Out]

Sunday September 13, 2026 3:00 am PDT by
Update 10:04 a.m.: iOS 27 is rolling out now, though it may take a bit for all users to see it, so keep checking! Apple is about to release iOS 27, which will finally deliver more advanced Siri AI capabilities as well as a variety of other refinements, improvements, and new features to iPhones. It's Apple's biggest software update of the year, and Apple announced at Wednesday's iPhone event...
iOS 27 Icon iPhone

iOS 27 Available Now With These 8 New Features

Monday September 14, 2026 9:00 am PDT by
Update — 10 a.m. Pacific Time: Apple has released iOS 27. During its iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone Duo event last week, Apple announced that iOS 27 will be released widely on Monday, September 14. iOS 27 should be available around 10 a.m. Pacific Time / 1 p.m. Eastern Time today via the Settings app, under General → Software Update. Below, we have highlighted eight new features and...
deep black iphone 18 pro

Apple Says iPhone 18 Pro Max Sold in U.S. Differs in One Way

Saturday September 12, 2026 3:27 pm PDT by
As noted by Nicolas Lellouche, who writes for the French tech website Numerama, Apple has updated its tech specs pages for the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max to clarify which models are equipped with its new C2 cellular modem and where. Apple now says the iPhone 18 Pro has a C2 modem worldwide, while the iPhone 18 Pro Max uses the chip in every country except for the U.S. According...

Top Rated Comments

181 months ago
Well, you can't infringe on an invalid patent. And now Apple seems to have burned it's bridges with one of its biggest suppliers. The arrogance of the big Apple is incredible.
Score: 23 Votes (Like | Disagree)
ouimetnick Avatar
181 months ago
The big question is why were they able to get a patent on it to begin with?

Just goes to show how screwed up the US Patent system actually is.

While I'm at it, I want to get a patent for a patent. That way when ever someone tried to patent something, I can sue them for infringing on the patent that covers applying and getting a patent.

I'll be rich.

Or I would use it to stop stupid people/companies from patenting stupid things.
Score: 23 Votes (Like | Disagree)
KnightWRX Avatar
181 months ago
Obvious? If it's so obvious, why no one made it before?

Pretty sure "Prior art" means someone made it before... :rolleyes:

----------

Only obvious in hindsight.

Pretty sure, again, Hindsight doesn't apply to "Prior".
Score: 21 Votes (Like | Disagree)
181 months ago
For me this isn't about Apple or Samsung (this ruling) - this is validation that the patent system has problems. And that, given time, it IS possible for them to be corrected (albeit slowly).

This invalidation is actually a great win for the consumer in the long run. That's not an Anti-Apple sentiment. Like I said - this is about things that shouldn't have been patented in the first place being re-evaluated.
Score: 18 Votes (Like | Disagree)
KnightWRX Avatar
181 months ago
like to know if that person/organization filed for a patent.

Irrelevant.
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)
MH01 Avatar
181 months ago
The big question is why were they able to get a patent on it to begin with?

Just goes to show how screwed up the US Patent system actually is.

Spot on.

Seems patenting the **** of our everything is now part of the development process. No matter how insignificant it might seem. And being a bureaucratic system, requests will get approved to be later rejected cause they were never analysed in the first place.

110% in agreement on how screwed up the patent system is.
Score: 12 Votes (Like | Disagree)

🔗 Related Apple News & Rumors

Stay updated with the latest Apple ecosystem news and verified rumors