|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
Judge Alsup appears to have been clear where he found written description
limitations in claim construction. Claim term construction outside those
limitations likely implies indefiniteness, and likely also limits doctrine of
equivalent results.
Oracle may not succeed in transmogrifying their 'invention' to suit the present
case following that path, and appear to have disclaimed it anyway (1170,
"Oracle’s infringement evidence proved literal infringement of the ’104
patent claims, and there is no need to consider the doctrine of
equivalents.").
Oracle's claim construction issues (1134, 1189) both appear to have timeliness
issues with the court's claim construction order (137). Both jury
clarifications appear to find support in the original claim construction order
contrary to Oracle's preferred interpretation (clever fellow, the Judge).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 01:17 AM EDT |
It *is* wrong, simply because otherwise the patent was granted on prior art
implemented in every compiler since K&R C, probably before.
That's the problem with Oracle's arguments, it would have been a real mess if
they'd won. Google going back to the patent office saying "Well the courts
say this means this, not what you interpreted it as, but here's 20 years of
prior art".
Patents have to be very narrowly, strictly, interpreted to avoid that problem.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
