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
That depends | 258 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That depends
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 01:59 PM EDT

On too many things. For example if two companies have a patent on the
same basic concept, aren't the odds good that a third company or individual
will also have a patent on the concept?

Think about it. Section 102 probably comes into play here.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Tough to answer "what is" - especially since the patent system is in such a mess!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 02:10 PM EDT

If you're asking for a Legal conclusion - I doubt anyone can give you a definitive answer. Even your own hired Lawyers no matter how much you pay them. So the obvious conclusion would be:

    The only way you'll get one is to go to Court and take your chances!
If you're asking for a realistically logical conclusion, then:
    If patent A was improperly granted when it should have been denied, patent B was also improperly granted and should also have been denied!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

not so hypothetical question
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 03:30 PM EDT
I will assume that both patents ("A" and "B") were granted.

You did not mention any legal actions being taken to invalidate Patent B;
therefore, its status would be that it is presumed valid, and is fully
enforceable by the owner(s).

One may attempt to have Patent B invalidated by the PTO or by the courts, while
pointing to Patent A as undisclosed prior art, but it's a risk... a potentially
very expensive risk.

Disclaimer: this is just my layman's, not-a-lawyer opinion. If you need a legal
opinion that matters, consult an attorney licensed to practice in your
jurisdiction.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

not so hypothetical question
Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:22 PM EDT
Well, I think that filing a patent is considered 'publishing' for the purposes of Prior Art. IF that's accurate (IANAPL), and if application A is filed before the priority date of patent B, then patent B is in deep doodoo. (modulo all sorts of fancy lawyering).

If patent A is filed inside the priority date of patent B, then you've get eve more of a crap shoot.

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's called "Interference"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 07:23 PM EDT
The two patents are said to "interfere" with each other. That's all I
know. IANAL.

[ 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 )