|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 11:09 PM EST |
But one can infer that from the interviews given post-trial.
they explicitly said that the jury's job was not to challenge
patent validity, even though they had been explicitly
instructed that it *was* their job to determine validity.
It will be interesting to see how the Federal Circuit handles
all of this.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 12:09 AM EST |
First, the jury wasn't there to try and invalidate any
patent. They were there to determine if the patent was
infringed or not.
Second, if they were really there to invalidate the patents,
it most likely would have taken more than a week. And they
would undoubtedly have asked more questions about each of the
patents.
Anyway, the only good outcome for this case is a re-trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nematoad on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 03:46 AM EST |
"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."
OK,the jury may not have known that the patent in question was under review, but
surely the judge did. So why did she allow the trial to go ahead?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
