Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 07:13 AM EDT |
Well, it might help to be able to say:
"We aren't practicing that patent, because we're using *this* technique
instead, which was well-known before that patent was issued, so we can't be
infringing on your patent"
That argument leaves the troll either invalidating their own patent, or
admitting that you don't practice it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 08:22 AM EDT |
My long time Groklaw lurker experience being my only credentials, I understand
that Patent Office prior art comes from their own patent data base. The office
does not search in the real world for examples of non-patented publications or
usage examples.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
Disclaimer: SO not-a-lawyer.
I think the defendants have just about exhausted their options for getting the
PTO to invalidate the patents (Apple's sole appeal notwithstanding).
However, if this ends up getting put in front of a jury, the defendants still
have the option of trying to convince the jury that these patents never should
have issued. Prior art might be one such path to pursue, I would think.
If you need a legal opinion, buy one from someone qualified to sell 'em. =)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
As I understand it, invalidity defenses (including prior art) can still be
asserted in the case. What happened was re-examination at the PTO, which would
only be binding if the patent was rejected. Otherwise, the information about the
re-examination is available to, but not binding on, the court. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|