|
| Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 11:51 PM EDT |
Didn't RIM get forced by a judge to pay a troll $600MM even though a patent was
ruled invalid?
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 12:19 AM EDT |
PJ's statement is valid in the context of a court finding a patent to be valid
and thus awarding compensation to the patent holder but the legal process has
not been finalized, you know all the appeals and such... In this situation, the
USTPO can indeed rule a patent is invalid and in doing so trump any as yet not
finalized court decisions.
But then again IANAL so i may be wrong :)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 01:44 AM EDT |
When the claim language is changed an infringement can only be found after the
re-issue date. This case deals with a ยง 112(f) claim ("...and such claim
shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described in the specification and equivalents thereof").
In this case the equivalent is a limitation on the specification imposed by
prior art as agreed to by the patentee during reexamination without affecting
the actual claim language, the limitation part of the prosecution history.
The scope of the claim has changed as a result of reexamination.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
