|
Authored by: IANALitj on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 02:36 AM EDT |
There is an internal structure to the complaint that you may be missing. Or may
not, I really don't know. I am not a patent lawyer, to be able to spot what the
appropriate elements are of the different claims for relief. And I am not
investing the time to investigate the details.
There are 21 paragraphs of general allegations before any of the claims for
relief.
The first four claims for relief are for declaratory judgments of
non-infringement of four separate patents. These four claims for relief are
cumulative, in the sense that each claim for relief depends on the general
assertions and also on the allegations of non-infringement of the earlier claims
relating to non-infringement. I don't know why, but the drafting of the later
claims for relief makes each depend on the facts alleged for non-infringement in
the earlier claims. (Perhaps there are relationships between the patents.)
Then come the fifth through eighth claims for relief. This second batch are
different; they also seek declaratory judgments, but for invalidity of the four
patents. These four claims for relief again depend on the general allegations
of the first 21 paragraphs, but none of them depends on the allegations relating
to non-infringement. Likewise, none of them depends on the allegations relating
to invalidity of the other patents. It does make some sense to me that neither
non-infringement nor invalidity of other patents bears on invalidity of each of
these four patents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|