But you did open my mind to a factor I hadn't previously considered. To
prove I didn't misrepesent - I said:
This is all my humble opinion
of course.
and
That's what I get from your issue with
my assertion that the Plaintiff Patent Attorney should know the history of the
Patent.
Here's a little clue in communications:
Just because
you intended to express a particular concept doesn't mean someone won't figure
out another concept from what you say. That doesn't mean you said it, nor
intended to say it... just what they concluded.
That clearly shows it's my
deductive reasoning of what you said that lead me to a conclusion you didn't
speak - and I'm certain you had no intention of speaking even if you had
consciously considered it. Few will willingly admit they are not qualified for
their job. There's some nasty malpractice lawsuit on ones hands if one did
admit that after one had practiced.
Nowhere in my post did I say "you
said.....".
Now, with regards your assertion (this is what you said, see
how I make that clear?):
I said in the limited time
available,(because time is money) it might happen that someone overlooks
something in a file history.
I respond (and this is my opinion, not
my statement of yours):
There's this little factor in Law called due
diligence
And I'd strongly suggest (not as an expert, but to the expert)
that:
Before the Patent Lawyer decides to sue 100 companies for
infringement, s/he should examine their own patent to understand it's scope
first!
If they did, they'd:
A: only target those who most likely
actually infringe
B: better understand their own patent so they are not
tripped up in a Court Of Law where the Judge finds the patent invalid based on
the broader definition that was rejected by the USPTO
Don't you think it
would be an even greater waste of time and money to find out the Patent Lawyer
has improperly raised Lawsuits they should not have? Time and money from the
perspective of the client of course. The Lawyer still gets paid so it's no
waste from that perspective.
Don't you think the Laywer would be
misrepresenting the best interests* of the client1 by
arguing a broader definition and risking having the patent invalidated that
should have been valid2?
1: Isn't that the common claim? That
the Lawyer must represent the client with Zeal? Does "with Zeal" mean to
initiate Lawsuits the client doesn't actually have a reasonable case for? Which
could cost them significantly in both time and money as a result?
2:
Assuming the patent granted by the USPTO with it's narrower four corners is even
valid.
*: Of course, I'm assuming the best interests of the client lies
in honestly enforcing an honest patent rather then in unjustly accumulating
licensing fees against people/entities that do not infringe.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
