It depends, there are two aspect of patent law. One being if you do with different code something that duplicates the exact process of what someone else has a patent on then yes you are infringing.
There is also a part of patent law (thats harder to prove, and used far less often) that basically means even if your way of doing something doesn't mirror what I have patent, but still appears to do the same thing, also would be an infringement.
The 2nd one is far, far more unlikely to held viable in a court situation (but over the last hundred plus years has been successful a few times).
For example, Apple was found to violate a patent from either Motorola or Samsung for automatic notifications. Apple did it slightly differently but close enough for that country's laws. So they had to drop that feature on its phones and instead have witched to a notifications that isn't immediately pushed to the phone, but is done like every minute or so.
Its way companies go to great lengths to find usable and viable means to invalidate a patent, and no the device in 2001 isn't going to hold water in the court system (hasn't in any country its been tried, 4 that I know of).
To the best of my knowledge no portable (which does include laptops) has been shown to have that rubber band effect that Apple introduced (and trust me companies have looked).
People bitch about Apple, yet I have yet to hear the alarm about over Microsoft suing to get license agreements (of which Apple was first to sign up with, both sign cross license agreements long ago over mobile tech), and most of the major players eventually after a few lost court cases signed up with 5 - 15 dollars a phone for android going to Microsoft.
Nor has anyone really brought up Samsung terrible counter suit. Suing Apple over patents that cannot be charged twice.
Intel covered the license of the chips, and Apple then purchased those chips from Samsung. They can't Double dip its in their very contract (nor or they supposed to charge one customer more then another). Apple just had to present receipts and it killed their entire counter suit, that they were asking for nearly half a billion for. Things that Intel paid a tiny fraction of that (literally less then a penny on the dollar).
Also people forget that Apple has been developing portables since the 1990's. And while the Newton died, their work never stopped (the trial went into this, and even some of the patents go back to the Newton itself). A lot of people have said well my phone did this function or that function in 2005 for example and not realizing that the issue in question (especially some coming up in the 2nd trial in California) are from patents back in the 90's due to the Newton. Just that very few consumers are aware of much about the Newton, and Apple's development tech for that. Patents in this case of 17 / 20 year life spans.