|
|
|
| Authored by: argee on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
Well, it may not be the end of this patent for Oracle. They
might want to bring it to bear against some other hapless
victim yet ...
Just because Google didn't use this or that defense, does not
mean someone else can't.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
I guess Google could always bring the prosecution record to support their claim
construction if Oracle tries to bring at trial a construction they have disowned
to sidestep prior art in front of the patent office.
This situation is peculiar in that the long standing construction for this trial
was that symbolic and numeric were mutual exclusive. Oracle changed their stance
at trial and Google complained about being ambushed with a "doctrine of
equivalence" argument.
The concept of an indirection being also a valid symbolic reference could have
been defensible under another claim construction had it been brought in a timely
manner. But then Google would have had plenty of time to examine the prosecution
record and find out the construction was compatible with the prior art.
What happened is the "trial by ambush" backfired because it involves
an impermissible change in a claim construction which was accepted by all the
experts and it required Dr Mitchell to repudiate parts of his own report. This
was more an improvised and poorly executed "OMG we are loosing, let's
change the argument now" strategy than a genuine trial by ambush.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
