Close
  • Latest News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Big Data and Analytics
  • Cloud
  • Mobile
  • Networking
  • Storage
  • Applications
  • IT Management
  • Small Business
  • Development
  • Database
  • Servers
  • Android
  • Apple
  • Innovation
  • Blogs
  • PC Hardware
  • Reviews
  • Search Engines
  • Virtualization
Read Down
Sign in
Close
Welcome!Log into your account
Forgot your password?
Read Down
Password recovery
Recover your password
Close
Search
Menu
eWEEK.com
Search
eWEEK.com
  • Latest News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Big Data and Analytics
  • Cloud
  • Mobile
  • Networking
  • Storage
  • Applications
  • IT Management
  • Small Business
  • Development
  • Database
  • Servers
  • Android
  • Apple
  • Innovation
  • Blogs
  • PC Hardware
  • Reviews
  • Search Engines
  • Virtualization
More
    Home Applications
    • Applications

    Google Wants Supreme Court to Review Chrome Patent Dispute

    By
    JAIKUMAR VIJAYAN
    -
    August 26, 2016
    Share
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Linkedin
      Google patents

      Google wants the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a patent infringement dispute involving its Chrome browser.

      In a petition filed earlier this month, the company asked the Supreme Court to consider whether an appeals court’s view on how claims made in a patent application should be interpreted is in fact valid.

      The case at the center of the dispute goes back to 2013 when inventor Alfonso Cioffi sued Google in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In the lawsuit, Cioffi claimed that an anti-malware feature in Google’s Chrome web browser violated four of his patents.

      The patents covered a method for protecting a computer from internet-borne malware by using a sandbox to isolate and execute malicious software safely.

      The district court that heard the case rejected Cioffi’s claims and held that Google had not violated any patent with its anti-malware protections in Chrome.

      Central to the decision was the court’s interpretation of two of the claims that Cioffi had made in the patents pertaining to a “web browser process” and a “critical file.” While Cioffi’s lawyers maintained that the terms as defined in the claim were narrow and specific in scope, Google argued that there were no common definitions for these terms on which to base an infringement claim.

      Muddying the waters, at least for Cioffi, was the fact that the four patents at the center of the dispute were in fact so-called reissue patents that had been issued after the patent office had disallowed the claims on his initial application. To get the reissue patents, Cioffi had to amend his original claims and make them more specific and narrow. For instance, instead of claiming a “browser process,” Cioffi claimed a more specific “web browser process” in his amended application.

      Google maintained that rather than considering the specific asserted claims in the amended patent application, the district court should look at the history of the patents instead to determine what Cioffi really meant when first applying for the patents.

      After the district court ruled in Google’s favor, Cioffi appealed the decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which in turn reversed the lower court decision.

      Fortune was the first to report on Google’s Supreme Court petition.

      In arriving at the decision, the appeals court held it would accept Cioffi’s definition of the claims because there was nothing in the history of the patents to specifically disavow his claims.

      In its petition to the Supreme Court, Google wants the court to decide which of these interpretations is applicable in the present case.

      Continued uncertainly on how patent claims are construed can have an “inimical” effect on the functioning of the patent system, Google said in its petition. “It has also led to serious abuse.”

      MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

      Android

      Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro: Durability for Tough...

      CHRIS PREIMESBERGER - December 5, 2020 0
      Have you ever dropped your phone, winced and felt the pain as it hit the sidewalk? Either the screen splintered like a windshield being...
      Read more
      Cloud

      Why Data Security Will Face Even Harsher...

      CHRIS PREIMESBERGER - December 1, 2020 0
      Who would know more about details of the hacking process than an actual former career hacker? And who wants to understand all they can...
      Read more
      Cybersecurity

      How Veritas Is Shining a Light Into...

      EWEEK EDITORS - September 25, 2020 0
      Protecting data has always been one of the most important tasks in all of IT, yet as more companies become data companies at the...
      Read more
      Big Data and Analytics

      How NVIDIA A100 Station Brings Data Center...

      ZEUS KERRAVALA - November 18, 2020 0
      There’s little debate that graphics processor unit manufacturer NVIDIA is the de facto standard when it comes to providing silicon to power machine learning...
      Read more
      Apple

      Why iPhone 12 Pro Makes Sense for...

      WAYNE RASH - November 26, 2020 0
      If you’ve been watching the Apple commercials for the past three weeks, you already know what the company thinks will happen if you buy...
      Read more
      eWeek


      Contact Us | About | Sitemap

      Facebook
      Linkedin
      RSS
      Twitter
      Youtube

      Property of TechnologyAdvice.
      Terms of Service | Privacy Notice | Advertise | California - Do Not Sell My Info

      © 2020 TechnologyAdvice. All Rights Reserved

      Advertiser Disclosure: Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which TechnologyAdvice receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. TechnologyAdvice does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.

      ×