Patch me if you can: Microsoft, Samsung, and Google win appeal over patent on remote updating
- Reference: 1621965673
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/05/25/microsoft_samsung_and_google_strike/
- Source link:
The trio won the appeal after Iron Oak challenged an earlier Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling on [2]patent 5,699,275 , which describes a method for remotely delivering operating system upgrades. Iron Oak is currently pursuing claims against all three of the tech giants in Texas courts, and yesterday's nonprecedential decision could affect that.
Named “system and method for remote patching of operating code located in a mobile unit,“ the 1995 patent describes a method in which a central server could transmit an operating system patch to a remote computer through a communications network. The remote machine would then merge the patch with the underlying operating system and switch to the updated code.
[3]
[4]
[5]
According to public records, Iron Oaks Technologies acquired the patent in 2014 from its previous holder, Fundamental Wireless LLC.
In 2018, the trio collectively and [6]individually [PDF] challenged the patent's validity at the PTAB, where it was subsequently ruled as “unpatentable” due to the existence of prior art.
Separately, the board also found that the patent was “obvious” and could be created by combining with existing prior art from four other patents registered in the US, Australia, and Japan.
[7]
Iron Oak Technologies had argued the board erred in their interpretation of this prior art, saying it failed to consider a timing mechanism described in its patent. This allows the host system to pick the remote device that should be prioritised for patching.
The three-judge panel at the US Federal Appeal Court said Iron Oak had further contended "that the Board confused the mobile units' operability to receive updates with the manager host’s operability to decide to which units to send the updates," and ruled: "The Board did not misunderstand."
The appeals court was unconvinced. "We see no reversible error in the board's analysis."
[8]
"Iron Oak's arguments based on the claim language, the Board’s construction, dependent claims, and the specification are unpersuasive." ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/05/25/24_may_ms_samsung_v_iron_oak-opinion.pdf
[2] https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/5699275
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YK1zg8A93W4wwbFt0NgayAAAAJE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YK1zg8A93W4wwbFt0NgayAAAAJE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YK1zg8A93W4wwbFt0NgayAAAAJE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/05/25/10_march_samsung_v_iron_oak.pdf
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YK1zg8A93W4wwbFt0NgayAAAAJE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YK1zg8A93W4wwbFt0NgayAAAAJE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: So far so good, as far as the court is concerned...
Elephant in the room is the Totally Broken (by design) USPTO. Since Edison's time.
in a mobile unit
Aaaaaand there it is again.
How is a "mobile unit" different from a fixed unit? The update server is somewhere on the network and the "unit" needing the update is somewhere else on the network. How the data gets from server to unit isn't relevant. Who's to say that there's not a radio link somewhere in the link between the devices? At the very least, it's entirely possible the end device getting the update is on the users WiFi, therefore it's a "mobile unit" by most definitions, QED.
Re: in a mobile unit
The concept 'mobile unit' is a sure sign of a Patent Troll. Updating of the firmware of remote devices is as old as remote devices, its one of the first pieces of code you organize after getting the prototype hardware running. The fact that the patent author neither knows this nor understands that transferring a file to the remote unit is the easy bit (there's lots of gotchas in the actual update process) means its just the product of an opportunist.
Re: in a mobile unit
You don't need WiFi or Cellular. Computers have been getting updates and data connection by wireless since maybe 1970s. The actual physical location of the Server and Client can be changed.
Over 1973–76, DARPA created a packet radio network called PRNET in the San Francisco Bay area.
See also X.25 and ALOHAnet.
It's irrelevant if IP, token Ring, X.25, per client multicore RS232, RS422/RS485/Appletalk, wireless, coax, twisted pair, station wagon of tapes. sd cards on avians, or fibre is used. Somehow there is a data connection and there is a mechanism to decide if the Client gets an update from a Server. NO version of this was EVER worthy of a patent.
Re: in a mobile unit
A "mobile unit" could be updated over a cable connection? I believe the latest iPad Pro can connect via ethernet using a USB-C to Ethernet adapter. There are laptops out there that are lighter than it.
Re: in a mobile unit
"a timing mechanism described in its patent. This allows the host system to pick the remote device that should be prioritised for patching."
This shows the age of the patent, a modern patent would obfuscate this by calling it an AI mechanism.
Re: in a mobile unit
You mean Time-AI, like Crown Sterling?
My favourite workaround
Some software used what seemed to me a reasonably clever, but obvious method to improve compression: it compressed data using eight well known methods and picked the best result.
Company was sued by a patent troll. So they changed the method: They compressed data using eight methods, and reported which of the eight methods worked best. And then they compressed the data using that best method.
A patent on updating an OS
Isn't threre a metric ton of prior art on that ?
The fact that the OS is "mobile" is neither here nor there.
Good on the courts for slapping this nonsense down.
As usual, bad on the USPTO for granting the patent in the first place.
So far so good, as far as the court is concerned...
* trivial patent derived from prior art
* add in a tiny nuance about host systems "deciding" something (rather than the client device)
* sit on it for a while and sell it to a patent troll
* new owner, use that nuance to try and prove the worthiness of the patent
* sue the bollocks off of every deep pocket that's already (even vaguely) doing this royalty free, shortly before the patent would expire, even (1995 plus ~20 years...)
* lose court battle (which effectively revokes your patent), and also the appeal
Yep. I think the court did the right thing, denying a patent troll his bogus claim.