|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:18 PM EST |
The jury assumed all patents are valid and does not even
consider challenging them, despite clear instructions by the
judge.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 06:21 PM EST |
that the patent was being reexamined by the USPTO, and might
be invalid. It was well known at the time, that the patent
might be invalid. However, the jury was apparently in a rush
to ignore all such claims.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jheisey on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:29 PM EST |
Samsung probably presented evidence of the patent's invalidity, which the jury
did not consider due to their rushing to finish their jury duty by the end of
the week.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 08:27 PM EST |
You know what, whilst I agree the Jury did not (appear to)
look into it and should have per instructions, the whole idea
of expecting some random members of the public to have the
understandings of the law required to judge whether a patent
is valid or not is ludicrous.
This should be a USPTO and judicial question not in the hands
of a lay jury.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 10:50 PM EST |
It should be noted that for a defendant to invalidate a patent at trial, the
defendant must show
invalidity by "clear and convincing" evidence. That's the
highest standard of proof
in civil cases.
When the PTO reexamines a
patent, the standard is "preponderance of the
evidence", which is the
lowest
standard of proof. It only requires that the evidence for invalidity be more
than the
evidence against invalidity by a very very very tiny
amount.
One cannot infer that the jury did not properly consider
invalidity arguments
based on the jury
coming to a different conclusion at
trial than the PTO came to on reexamination.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 12:39 AM EST |
Whatever else you might want to say about the jury's decision, it's clear
that "did not include spending effort on whether or not this was a valid patent"
is an accurate assessment. The foreman persuaded the rest of the jury that they
weren't supposed to consider that issue, despite clear instructions that they
were supposed to consider that. So, at least according to the
first-hand reports, they literally took no effort on this particular
question.
You're right that we didn't get new information about what a
shoddy job the jury did--the foreman's reports have made it abundantly
clear what a shoddy job the jury did. What we now know is that the jury was
flat wrong to assume that this patent was valid. Would they have come
to that conclusion if they'd tried "spending effort"? We'll never know. They
didn't even try to do their job.
---
Do not meddle in the
affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 09:12 AM EST |
Such different results are NOT surprising. In litigation patent claims are
PREUSMED VALID and the burden of proof on invalidity is clear and convincing
evidence. No such presumption exists in reexamination, and the USPTO need only
establish a prima facie case of invalidity.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
