|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
Hmm. That's a good question. And I don't know
the answer. But my logic tells me it's because
it's not really the judge who brings in evidence
into the case. An adversary system gives that
role, generally speaking, to the lawyers for
the parties.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 01:09 AM EDT |
Generally, what evidence to present is considered to be up to the parties.
The court doesn't normally pull in evidence on it's own initiative. So in a case
like this the judge would leave it up to the parties whether they wanted to
present the results of the USPTO action, leave it to them to decide whether it'd
benefit their case or not. At most if a party did something like ask for a stay
pending results of a USPTO reexamination, the judge might order them to submit
the results when they come in (and if they didn't it'd be up to the other party
to bring up the failure to comply). The courts in the US play a more passive
role, generally judging the evidence the parties decide to present rather than
making an independent inquiry. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
There is also the burden on the PTO.
At any given time there must be thousands of cases going on all over the country
the PTO could try to keep track of them all and try to update every court
considering each case and patent under examination but if they fail who is
responsible?
The parties are actively watching and in some cases participating the PTO action
so they would have an incentive to track it very carefully, they would be aware
of which cases that particular patent applies to.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 02:06 AM EDT |
There is also a separation of the judicial and administrative branches. Having
a Judge contact the patent office may be seen as trying to influence the
decision.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
