|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
The jury instructions should include a statement on how to deal with ambiguity
in the claims: should the jury decide what the claims mean? should ambiguity be
held against the patentee or the defendant?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Christian on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
The Google reply brief addresses the jury's problem, but they aren't allowed to
see it. According to the brief in support of their JMOL, patent law includes
literal infringement and a doctrine of equivalents. Part of the jury wants to
say, it seems, that the actions of the DVM are equivalent to the protected
invention, that the instructions contain a numeric references that act as
symbolic references. The plaintiff can argue that the infringer's invention
performs the same task in substantially the same way and achieves the same
result and is therefore equivalent. Google says that Oracle has to specifically
argue this kind of infringement and prove the equivalence, but Oracle never did.
The jury is lost in the fog because they don't realize that Oracle was
supposed to prove something and didn't. The jury thinks they are supposed to
figure it out from first principles, and they don't know how.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|