|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
"Whether a patent should ever have issued is the question when deciding if
there
is or is not prior art and also whether or not the patent is obvious, because if
there is prior art, the patent should not have issued and ditto with obvious.
That
is a central role of the jury, and they failed." is an entirely different
question than
whether the jury has the authority to question the patent office's ability to
grant
design patents *at all*[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
There are basically three
things that have to happen for a defendant to be
liable for patent infringement.
- The patent must cover patentable
subject matter.
- The patent must be novel, useful, non-obvious, and so
on.
- The alleged infringing device has to practice the patent
claims.
The first of these three, patentable subject matter, is a
question of law and
was not given to the jury. The other two are questions of
fact and were given to
the jury. This is reflected on the juror instructions,
where you will note there is
no question concerning whether or not the patents
involved patentable subect
matter.
The foreman was interpreting the
Gizmodo question as asking whether or
not the jury considered whether the
patent covered patentable subject matter,
and he correctly answered that
it was not their role to do so. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
Since PJ claimed that the form expressly asked them to determine whether or not
the patents in question should have been issued, could someone please give me a
page number? I've scanned it twice now, and I can't seem to find that
question.
While you're at it, can you provide a reference for it's location in the jury
instructions as well?
I'm not sure whether I'm misunderstanding PJ's claim, or if she's simply
overstating something in her enthusiasm.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: starsky on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
I think he was correct in his response that it wasn't the jury's role to
determine what is and is not patentable but to assess validity under the law as
it stands (which they did very poorly beacause of his interchangeble goof)
PJ - Are you saying a jury could choose to invalidate Software patents at trial
just because they don't think software patents are fair?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Both Wrong? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- Both Wrong? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT
- Both Wrong? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT
|
