|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 09:10 PM EST |
However, the jury foreman claimed to have the expertise to
declare the patent valid and infringed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 09:14 PM EST |
| Welcome to the Constitution of the US of A. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 12:34 AM EST |
Parent writes
"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."
I think we will see as we get more transcripts that the
jury was shown prior art which invalidates the patent.
The jury did not have to understand the law. The jury
was given instructions which, due to the foreman, the
jury failed to follow.
I hope the patent office action which may well have been
based on the same prior art the jury was shown, might
be useful in arguing that no reasonable jury could have
come to the conclusion that this jury did.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 09:16 AM EST |
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read a patent claim,
look at a piece of prior art, and think "hey, this has been
done before. this isn't new."
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
