|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
I think that this is because there is a rule of law that there can't be indirect
or induced infringement unless there is also direct infringement. The jury is
instructed to determine the direct infringement first and if there is none then
as a matter of law the issue of indirect or induced infringement is moot.
IANAL
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
jibe-
intransitive verb
: to be in accord : agree [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
Since direct infringement by 3rd parties is not present in evidence, and only
the facts in evidence can be assessed to determine whether the preponderance of
evidence supports the plaintiff's claims, it is hard to see how indirect or
contributory infringement by Google can possibly be found.
Those 3rd parties are not named, and their Android devices are not in evidence,
and those devices have not been examined and demonstrated to contain the alleged
patented invention, as part of evidence or as testimony of witnesses (yet).
Until the above is in evidence or testimony, there doesn't seem to be a
foundation for the claims of indirect or contributory patent infringement by
Google.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
