[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• Prior art (from 1996) - Authored by: jrl on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 11:01 AM EDT

It seems the main practice of some Patent Lawyers (and possibly the USPTO - and some Jury members) is to pretend to do their due diligence.

I say pretend because Apple was granted a patent by the USPTO which the USPTO later reviewed and invalidated based on the prior art of a previous Apple patent.

Yup, Apple's Patent filing Lawyer failed his/her due diligence in filing for the patent knowing (or reasonably should have known) of a previous Apple patent.

Then the USPTO failed in the granting of said patent when they had - in their very files - the previous Apple patent.

Then the Trial Jury failed when - apparently - the Jury Foreman appears to have convinced the rest of the Jury they didn't really need to follow the Court's instructions after all.

Then the Court failed when it decided what the Jury did was acceptable.

And ... with history caught up (my opinion of it's representation): Samsung is still faced with the litigation prospects and the potential of having to pay for infringement on an invalid "rubber band" patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]