|
|
|
| Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 09:32 AM EST |
What we now know is that the jury was flat wrong to
assume
that this patent was valid.
Uh no...
I
think this is a valid statement. He is saying we now know,
as in hindsight. As
in we thought they were wrong before to
assume the patent was valid, and now we
know it was wrong of
them to assume it because we have conflicting evidence
from
the USPTO. Them being wrong does not assess their quality of
work. Just
says they were wrong. Surely you can agree that
they were not correct to make
that assumption. Logically
that was a valid statement for OP to
make.
The sole metric for the quality of their work are the jury
instructions, and how well they have been met.
I think we can all
agree that the jury did not follow
directions regarding prior art. so in that
respect, their
quality of work was "shoddy."
So we got no new
information here regarding the quality of
jury work.
That is
correct, and the OP statet that in his own post
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.
We did not get any "new" information. We did however confirm
our previous assumption that the jury work was "shoddy."---
IANAL [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
