decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
And yet, the impossible is happening - go figure | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And yet, the impossible is happening - go figure
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT

There was a case I recall where the defendant had to raise what the Patent Plaintiff had narrowed in their discussions with the USPTO with the Court!

I'll require time to find that for evidence to support my claim that the Patent Plaintiff Lawyers are arguing outside the boundries of what the patent was granted for.

The point being: The Patent Plaintiffs know what the history is with their Patent. It's their patent!!! A Defendant should not have to point out the history and four corners to the Plaintiff. The fact this is occuring shows clear abuse on the part of the Plaintiff - through their Patent Attorneys.

Additionally, your statement of...

used against the patent holder
... only has weight if:
    1: It is brought to the attention of an official Court
and
    2: The Judge chooses to accept those over the new definitions being argued by the Plaintiff
Point 1 should be clear on it's face:
    Patent enforcement takes place in more then just the Court room!
So when that first letter of infringement is sent... it is enforcement.

The weight of the USPTO historical evidence only has potential value if the defendant decides to take on the potential costs of a starting $2 million to fight the invalidity of the patent enforcement.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )