|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
was thinking the same thing a day or so ago,
but not just 'lots and lots of prior art', they are bordering on broadening
their interpretation down to textbook form.
maybe their plan is to go after the prior art for damages?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- The problem...e - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 04:59 PM EDT
- The problem...e - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- The problem...e - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 11:51 PM EDT |
| N/T [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
That's the double edge of it.
A patent holder has to find the balance between maximizing potential
infringement, but not going so broad as to invalidate the patent.
bkd[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
They were issued under specific interpretations and
restrictions of their scope, and so they should be tried on
exactly these terms.
In many cases the patents were rejected initially for prior
art etc, and had to be limited in scope to get through, so
it makes no sense at all for this "claim construction"
malarkey to redefine what they mean.
It seems there's no way to enforce that a patent is tried on
the same restrictive terms that it was issued, and this
seems *very wrong indeed*.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
