|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
To deal with those willing to abuse their patent grants by arguing a much
broader reading of the patent then that which was granted by the USPTO, I
suggest the following.
A: A requirement by Law that a Patent
Licensor/Enforcer must present to the potential Licensee/defendant a document
outlining the clear extent of what the Licensor/Enforcer views as the scope of
the Patent.
B: This will allow the Licensee/Defendant to review the
patent in the context of the documents available at the USPTO. If the
Licensee/Defendant feels the description is broader then what was granted, a
petition can be made to the USPTO Tribunal to review the definition that's
attempting to be enforced.
C: A tribunal of Patent Examiners set up at
the USPTO which the Licensee/defendant can then provide the Patent Definition
Document to who will then examine the document within the context of the actual
Patent the USPTO granted. This, of course, would include examination into the
full history to get a clear indication of the true four corners the patent is
supposed to fit into.
D: If the examiners find the Patent document is
within that which the USPTO actually granted - then the Tribunal can confirm to
the Licensee/Defendant the validity.
Note: This, of course, would not
preclude the potential licensee/defendant from seeking other avenues - such as
seeking prior art to invalidate the patent.
E: If the Patent document is in
a reasonable grey area - sometimes within the scope, sometimes reasonably
outside the scope - then the Tribunal can identify what falls within and put
limits on those that fall outside the scope.
F: If the Patent document
falls well outside the scope of what was granted, the Tribunal can find the
patent forever invalidated due to abuse (whether deliberate or not) of the
Patent Grant.
The more I think about it, the more this comes across as a
valid idea that should work to decrease the failures of the patent system while
not causing harm to those who are properly making use of the patent
system.
Initially, a bunch of truly valid patents may well be invalidated
due to abuse of how the patents are being enforced. But the Patent Lawyers -
and patent owners both - would quickly learn that they are not allowed to abuse
their patents.
If they wish to keep the valid patents, then enforce
within the four corners that the USPTO granted the patent for.
Caveat:
This speaks of patent use in general. I still feel software patents, in
specific, are patents on abstract ideas and therefore should not be patentable
subject matter.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|