|
|
|
| Authored by: Tkilgore on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
I see the logic, but I don't think this is how the US law sees it. Remember that
the jury will have to follow instructions written by the judge. The instructions
will follow the legal tests.
The notion of inventive concept is not something recognized by US patent law. I
know in EU patent law there is a notion of inventive step, but this is a place
where the two laws differ. This may be confusing for our EU friends with
knowledge of EU law.
What I expect (IANAL) is that the jury will be asked to go through all the
elements recited in the claim and check if Oracle has proven that they are
present in Google's code. If they are all present the jury will have to say the
claim is infringed. Repeat for each contested claim. I expect the burden of the
proof to be on Oracle on this one.
Also, assuming that Google challenge the validity of the patent, and it seems
they have agreed not to, the jury must verify if Google has proven there is some
prior art which practice all the elements of the claims. If so the patent is
invalid for lack of novelty. Repeat for each contested claim. I expect that the
burden of the proof to be of Google on this one.
I think the jury will not be allowed to reason along the lines you suggest
because the instructions will dictate otherwise. On the other hand, the same
information which must be used to make the case you suggest can also be rehashed
and presented to make a case along the tests which will be asked from the jury.
So this is not a difference in the substance of the argument. This is a matter
of how the facts are organized to fit the legal logic.
However, since Google has agreed not to challenge the validity of the patent, I
believe that arguments based on prior art are unlikely to happen.
IANAL. I may be all wrong, but this is what I expect things will turn out.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
