Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
That isn't an argument that the patent is invalid, it's an argument for
explaining how you don't infringe on it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
The are lots of defendants here.
What if all of them claim that they developed said methods independently of one
another and without ever looking at the patents in question? The methods must
then be obvious for so many to have come up with them independently. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
As defined by USPTO. A judge is usually bound to take some notice
of that. But out in the real world where the defendants live and work
with the rest of us, the USPTO rules are applicable only inside their
own little Wonderland. The validity of a patent must be questionable
if the only prior art considered is that already on USPTO books, and
no consideration is given to what is published or sold in the real world.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
You've been practising the patent since before it was applied for?
That was the point of the parent. If you've been practising the patented
invention since before the patent was applied for, then the troll really ought
to walk away before their suit self-destructs.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|