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
Oh, I forgot to mention | 189 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oh, I forgot to mention
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 05:59 PM EDT
Thanks, you seem to have answered my question above that was based on my growing
suspicion of the USAnian patent racket.

Tufty

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oh, I forgot to mention
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 11:02 PM EDT
Well final office action was issued on the 1st April, (01/04/2013).

That means the final office action had been going for 7 months. Now this is only
the trial and not the
final decision (or two), so a month could easily be added on to make it 8 months
(remember these two
fight like cats and dogs). Also remember the first trial was scheduled for 30th
of July 2012, and a
judgement wasn't made about it until earlier this year.

Also from what i understand, they would be appealing the denial of the final
extension, not the actual
validity of patent itself. So they will have to a good reason why their response
is late. I am also
assuming that the USPTO doesn't take kindly to late submissions (considering
that you get fined if you
don't give them 3 months to decide).

Also the judge may be just getting the potential trial out of the way , and will
end up waiting for the
final judgement of the patent before making her final decision (like she did
with the injunction). Think
about it this way if the judge had of said we will wait, then this would have
gone to the appeals court
anyway. Which the decision may have been overturned. Remember she did question
the validity of the
patents in the first trial. I mean she has to be fair to everyone or it will get
appealed.

Thanks

Brendan

[ 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 )