https://us.etrade.com/e/t/invest/Story?ID=STORYID%3Detrade_2012_12_19_eng-etrade_cbs2_market_watch_eng-etrade_cbs2_market_watch_56A24C5B-CB3D-49B9-8257-E98F7D2281FB&provider=DowJones

Dec 19, 2012 17:23:19 (ET) By Ian Sherr

SAN FRANCISCO--One of Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) touch-related patents, used as a cornerstone of its case against Samsung Electronics Co. (SSNHY, 005930.SE), has been invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The firm declared invalid the entirety of Apple's so-called "pinch-to-zoom" patent on Wednesday, according to a court filing from Samsung. The Korean electronics giant said in a statement to the court that the patent had been struck down on re-examination due to previous patents on record.

Samsung said the development supports its request for a new trial.

A Samsung spokesman declined to comment beyond the filing. An Apple spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The move is Samsung's latest in efforts to reduce or reverse a jury's decision from August that handed Apple more than $1 billion in damages. Apple accused Samsung of copying its designs and infringing its patents, including the "pinch-to-zoom," which is patent number 7,844,915. A jury ruled that Samsung infringed six Apple patents.

The trial was a flashpoint in the ongoing battles between the companies that have crisscrossed courtrooms around the globe. Apple in particular has become a central figure in these patent battles, fighting both Samsung and Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Motorola unit in particularly heated attempts to win injunctions against the import and sale of their competitor's products.

So far, few injunctions have been won and fewer have stuck, eventually either being reversed or, in the case of HTC Corp. (HTCXF, 2498.TW), being settled out of court.

For Apple, the patent decision marks another blow in its court battle with Samsung. Though it won hefty damages, the Cupertino, Calif., gadget maker was unable to secure an injunction against the Samsung products found to have been infringing its patents, with the presiding judge noting most of the products were either no longer for sale or had been since changed in a software update.

Write to Ian Sherr at ian.sherr@dowjones.com