|
|
|
| Authored by: jvillain on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are asking but here goes.
If one of your claims is invalidated by the USPTO it is likely because there was
prior art or you accidental had your claim read by the one person at the USPTO
that has a clue and realized that it was a trivial upgrade etc. In that case
what ever you were claiming would no longer be valid and in theory* you can not
sue over it. Any other patent that claimed the exact same thing would be prime
for being stricken for the exact same reason. If your claim does kind of the
same thing but works in a different way it is a totally different claim.
Invalidating one patent should never open up room for another to grow into.
* I said in theory because if the SCO trial taught us any thing it is that you
certainly can sue with out owning valid patents. And some courts don't really
care.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
I only have the answer in regards to the '104 patents off the top of my head as
that is the re-examination I have been looking at recently.
All of the claims for '104 that are in this case were rejected as being
anticipated by at least one of the example of prior art that were submitted by
Google.
However, as the rejection is not yet final and is being appealed by Oracle,
Google was not allowed to mention the rejections during the trial. Thus Oracle
was free to try to show Android doing things that are covered by the claims even
though those things were done by the prior art.
Google has taken the tactical approach of trying to show that Android does not
infringe, which usually is an easier task than convincing a jury that the patent
is invalid. I can see the point. The jury is much more likely to understand an
argument of the form "this is all done in dexopt before the the application
is ever run and therefore is static not dynamic" than they are to
understand a complex claim chart that maps each element of the Gries compiler
text describing the construction of an interpreter to the completely different
language of the patent describing the dynamic linking in a Java interpreter in a
VM.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT |
I was wondering along the same lines. With Mitchell's expanded definitions in
order to include what Android does is what the Jury deliberating on actually
removed from the '104 and '520 patents in order to get through the application?
I think this exposes a strategic error on Google's part by not also arguing
invalidity in the trial. If they had I think it may have been much easier to
prove that they don't implement them. The more Oracle broadens the claims to
cover Android the easier it becomes to point to prior art.
By arguing for both invalidity and non-use you are in a much better position to
win one or the other. I understand the concern of time limits preventing
multiple defenses but I think that adopting a strategy of using both to win one
is the best way to defend against a patent brought by an unethical opponent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
