I wasn&#x27;t commenting at all on why it was invalidated, or whether the invalidation was correct. I was responding to the comment<p>&gt; <i>I interpret that they didn&#x27;t find on narrow grounds, the Federal circuit just invalidated a bunch of patents. That&#x27;s good, right?</i><p>The way the comment is phrased, it makes it sound like ajross is saying that it&#x27;s good that the Federal circuit just invalidated patents. Which is to say, it sounded like ajross was saying that it&#x27;s good for patents to be invalidated in general, as opposed to whether it was correct for this particular patent to have been found invalid.<p>&gt; <i>Our current system hinders innovation and causes a hostile environment for anyone creating anything in technology today.</i><p>You&#x27;re talking about software patents here. Design patents are different. Which was kind of the whole point of my comment.<p>Note: I don&#x27;t know if I&#x27;m using the phrase &quot;design patent&quot; correctly here, because IANAL and I don&#x27;t know if there&#x27;s actually a specific legal term for that. What I&#x27;m referring to here is a patent that describes some aspect of user experience, which is different than a patent that describes <i>how</i> to accomplish something. It&#x27;s easy to accidentally infringe on software patents because it&#x27;s easy to accidentally do something the same way someone else did without knowing. But for these &quot;design patents&quot;, you typically infringe these because you explicitly want to copy what the patent holder is doing, i.e. you don&#x27;t infringe on these things accidentally.