|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
| No significant text here. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
How it should work and how it does work when abuse is present are two very
different situations.
Let's view the logic:
Since the limitations are
already there, it doesn't cost the patent filer anything to have them officially
defined.
With the definitions officially in place, this should decrease
the amount of pre-trial haggling the Lawyers do over the terms. Whether it will
or not.... well.... as one Lawyer argued in the years we've been following the
Law "all doesn't mean all".
So there's a very strong benefit (in reduced
time and expenses pre-trial) and no additional costs up-front (for the
filer)....
... as a result, there's really no purpose in being unhappy
with that particular requirement is there?
Of course... I can see how
those who want to be dishonest with the definitions would not like the
change.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
From a recent article that was co-authored by Chief Judge Randall Radar of the Federal
Circuit Court Of Appeals.
Other indications of potential bullying
include litigants who [snip] distort a patent claim far beyond its plain meaning
and precedent for the apparent purpose of raising the legal costs of the
defense.
I can't say if Judge Radar agrees that's happening - but I
do think it's reasonable to conclude he reviewed the article prior to it's
publication and if he had an issue with that statement it would have likely been
removed.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
