|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 08:47 PM EST |
Except that when the USPTO declares a patent invalid, that is (almost always)
based on _prior_ art (either prior patents, as in this case, or other non-patent
things that -- alone or in combination -- teach or make obvious the claims).
In other words, an invalidation is an admission by the PTO that there was
something they missed, that existed before the patent in question, and whose
existence means that that patent SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GRANTED in the first
place; so any presumption of validity is erased, and (after the invalidation is
final and appeals are settled) the patent NEVER WAS VALID.
There's not still a time period of "well, the patent was valid until date
X" to worry about.
Now in this case, there is a current case in the court system, so there is a
real and still active dispute about infringement and damages related to this
patent; so it's very much relevant. It might be a different story if this case
and its appeals had already finished; I don't know.
In the case of a settlement, the courts and law are (primarily) out of it: it
depends on the terms of the settlement contract. Those are usually kept secret,
so we don't usually know what they are. But from what I've seen of companies
gouging settlements out of alleged infringers as fast as they can before their
patents get ruled invalid, my guess is that the plaintiffs must usually push for
the payments not to be refundable based on an invalidation. On the other hand,
I would think that as a defendant, I would push hard for a term in the
settlement giving some fixed period of time post-settlement, and providing for
at least a pro-rated repayment of monies if the patents were found to be invalid
during that time.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 09:37 PM EST |
I am no legal expert, i will say that straight out. As of this day yes they
still have to pay. But this case is far from over since Samsung has a lot of
appeals left so they can petition the court for those damages to be removed, But
really this trail was a crap shoot by the jury so Samsung has a lot of ammo in
the clip for an appeal.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 10:36 PM EST |
If the law I went to jail under is declared invalid (e.g., unconstitutional), do
I still have to finish my sentence? No, I get to go free. Is this a difficult
concept?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 04:02 AM EST |
Does anyone have an approximate cost [to society] of the USPTO issuing
Patents that are later invalidated under reexam (ie patents that should not have
been issued)?
Including:
- licence fees paid that would not have been
paid if the patent had not been incorrectly issued in the first place;
- cost
of negotiating those Licence fees;
- cost of litigation (including money paid
by the invalid patent holders and the innocent defendants, losses to defendants
due to product injunctions, etc)
Ideally broken down by patent type, but
I'd settle for just software patents to start with.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: designerfx on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 10:58 AM EST |
This is why you don't settle with patent shakedowns. If it's
cheaper to invalidate the patent, you're better off going that
route.
It's also why the B&N decisino was a bad decision.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 11:09 AM EST |
My take on it is this: Once you pay your money, its gone. Good luck trying to
get it back.
At the same time, until you hand your money over, it still belong to you. If
you can have the patent declared invalid, there is no reason to hand over the
money, as there is no reason to pay in the first place.
Yes - this is over simplified. There will be a lot of costs incured along the
way - I am just referred to the final amount that needs to be handed over.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 04:40 PM EST |
RIM had to pay out for patents that were invalidated during their appeal. The
ruling was that they were valid prior to the trial. This is why it is so
dangerous to ignore patents until some one tries to use them. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
