If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   East Texas patent court rules that a company that created business websites in 1996 is guilty of infringing on a business website patent filed in 1998   (arstechnica.com) divider line 49
    More: Asinine, East Texas, Texas, DDR, wth, Travelocity, Orbitz, patent court, Expedia  
•       •       •

4874 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Oct 2012 at 1:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-13 09:36:01 AM  
Did they patent "skins" as applied to e-commerce web sites?
 
2012-10-13 10:30:28 AM  
That's it! I'm patenting 'stupid' and suing everyone for infringement!

//are the knuckleheads at the patent office even trying anymore?
 
2012-10-13 01:02:25 PM  
To anyone familiar with it, East Texas Patent Court is synonymous with ridiculously fraudulent and quite often illiterate claim.

Some numbskull down there had something called "free speech store" . Where he'd first go copy others works off of web sites, put them behind a paywall, then charge you if you wanted him to take them down. Brilliant plan. Some pissant local judge backed him up on all of this.

I got to be the one handling some of this ridiculous legal action, since our ISP customers were the ones going after him. Good times. Never saw so much ridiculous legal paper flying around. Of course we had to respond/comply with every dumbass subpoena they sent.

The whole East Texas Patent frauds need a federal take-down, Waco style.
 
2012-10-13 01:08:23 PM  
There is another Time Lord?!? The Lawyer
 
2012-10-13 01:49:21 PM  
Technically what the court ruled was that the websites the company has made since 2006 infringe on the 1998 patent, and the websites they had made from 1996-1998 did not invalidate the patent.

Either way it seems like a bad ruling, but not surprising out of Texas.
 
2012-10-13 01:53:30 PM  
they be trollin, trollin , trollin, keep them lawsuits rollin rawhide! hell bent for leather , through wind rain and weather , keep them lawsuits rollin on down the line. trollin trollin trollin
 
2012-10-13 02:29:03 PM  
TL;DR:

Patent trolls actually do hold prior art as a result of buying the company that initially used the invention.
While the patent was filed after the infringement occurred, the prior art occurred before it.

It is a trollerific business model, though
 
2012-10-13 02:55:33 PM  
This American Life did a story a while back on how and why these Texas courts have become a magnet for patent lawsuits. Link.
 
2012-10-13 03:18:01 PM  
So, is the American Inventors Act doing anything to cut down on the marshall, texas, ridiculousness?
 
2012-10-13 03:36:53 PM  
The point of Republicans is to shiat on America and grin like they achieved something. Texas is probably the greatest Republican stronghold at this point, so you're going to get results like this.

I live in Texas, and the people who are doing this? Are not good people. They don't respect honor, and truth, and science -- not in any way that matters. They can be kind and generous, but as soon as their politics come up, they forget how business and decency work, and they do what they're told and they think what they're told, and ultimately there's no choice but to hold them to account for this.

They're not going to get better. There's no argument that'll make them be honest. There are no words that'll make them see reason. They're ignorant, and they're going to be ignorant until they die, and they're going to shiat on America with every vote they case until they die.

That's the hardest lesson to learn, that reason is beyond them. It shouldn't be true, and it's a disappointment beyond any other, but that's the way it is. Being an American means pushing past these people. It's not enough to just wait for them to die, we've got to do better. We've got to get these people doing what they do best -- which, generally, is watching Matlock and cashing their government checks. These people have done enough to--- ah, for, America. Let's help give them some time off from doing more.
 
2012-10-13 04:47:34 PM  
They may have lost this case, but maybe they could patent the concept of pre-crime, which apparently they invented.
 
2012-10-13 05:30:01 PM  

jesdynf: The point of Republicans is to shiat on America and grin like they achieved something. Texas is probably the greatest Republican stronghold at this point, so you're going to get results like this.

I live in Texas, and the people who are doing this? Are not good people. They don't respect honor, and truth, and science -- not in any way that matters. They can be kind and generous, but as soon as their politics come up, they forget how business and decency work, and they do what they're told and they think what they're told, and ultimately there's no choice but to hold them to account for this.

They're not going to get better. There's no argument that'll make them be honest. There are no words that'll make them see reason. They're ignorant, and they're going to be ignorant until they die, and they're going to shiat on America with every vote they case until they die.

That's the hardest lesson to learn, that reason is beyond them. It shouldn't be true, and it's a disappointment beyond any other, but that's the way it is. Being an American means pushing past these people. It's not enough to just wait for them to die, we've got to do better. We've got to get these people doing what they do best -- which, generally, is watching Matlock and cashing their government checks. These people have done enough to--- ah, for, America. Let's help give them some time off from doing more.


I'm no fan of GOP. But this has nothing to do with Texas. Patent trolls register their businesses in small towns so they can file suit there. If they filed in, say, L.A. they'd have to wait years for a hearing.
 
2012-10-13 05:45:30 PM  

stuhayes2010: I'm no fan of GOP. But this has nothing to do with Texas. Patent trolls register their businesses in small towns so they can file suit there. If they filed in, say, L.A. they'd have to wait years for a hearing.


It's not just that; they jurisdiction/judge shop as well; they're generally guaranteed to get a specific judge in someplace the size of LA. They're also more likely to get a *skilled* judge who'll toss their ridiculous claims out.

In a smallish town they know what judge they'll get, and then they simply shop around all the small towns(big enough to have a court) to find one that rules their way 99% of the time.
 
2012-10-13 05:55:28 PM  

INTERTRON: TL;DR:

Patent trolls actually do hold prior art as a result of buying the company that initially used the invention.
While the patent was filed after the infringement occurred, the prior art occurred before it.

It is a trollerific business model, though


Then they shouldn't have gotten the patent since the method/invention was already in the public domain.
 
2012-10-13 06:00:18 PM  
I wonder how many insanely well-off Federal judges there are in the Eastern District of Texas these days.
 
2012-10-13 06:24:14 PM  

jesdynf: The point of Republicans is to shiat on America and grin like they achieved something.


Funniest thing I've seen all day. Bravo.
 
2012-10-13 06:35:01 PM  
Someday there will be a murder case where the motive is the outrage at a patent troll.

/ are you listening, Law and Order Criminal Intent folks?
// doink doink
 
2012-10-13 07:04:04 PM  

Butter-Glider Jockey: This American Life did a story a while back on how and why these Texas courts have become a magnet for patent lawsuits. Link.


Thanks for posting that. ive been writing code for 15 years and that was a very interesting read. id have to agree with the other engineers quoted, for the most part software patents are a bunch of bullshiat. I have several that were issued based on code i wrote for my old company. Ive never actually read any of them. it doesnt make sense to me that you can just describe in words how you think a process would work in code and get a patent based on that without any actual implementation of the code proven. I did in fact implement my ideas in code that worked and is still running today processing millions in loans every month, but still my patents are probably not really patentable inventions, copyright provides all the intellectual property protection we need for software.
The whole thing is messed up at many levels.
 
2012-10-13 07:14:25 PM  
Texass strikes again
 
2012-10-13 07:15:01 PM  
Boss Hogg said so, that's why.

Nobody can do anything anymore. Not even sell lemonade on the corner.
 
2012-10-13 07:43:04 PM  
1998 is 2 better than 1996. JUDGE RULES FOR THE PLAINTIFF. CASE CLOSED.
 
2012-10-13 08:35:03 PM  
So the trial took 5 days? Yeah that's not the least bit suspicious.
 
2012-10-13 08:51:38 PM  

LikeALeafOnTheWind: Butter-Glider Jockey: This American Life did a story a while back on how and why these Texas courts have become a magnet for patent lawsuits. Link.

Thanks for posting that. ive been writing code for 15 years and that was a very interesting read. id have to agree with the other engineers quoted, for the most part software patents are a bunch of bullshiat. I have several that were issued based on code i wrote for my old company. Ive never actually read any of them. it doesnt make sense to me that you can just describe in words how you think a process would work in code and get a patent based on that without any actual implementation of the code proven. I did in fact implement my ideas in code that worked and is still running today processing millions in loans every month, but still my patents are probably not really patentable inventions, copyright provides all the intellectual property protection we need for software.
The whole thing is messed up at many levels.


Copyright only protects against those who copy you. Patents protect against independent inventors, including companies that don't even know of your existence.

You can get a patent without an actual implementation of software because the relevant legal standard is that you describe it well enough that "a person having ordinary skill in the art" would be able to make the invention. I assume you can hand a flow-chart to most programmers and they can write a module of code that does each box. It's not too important what lines of code are in the modules (files, objects, whatever).

/patent lawyer
 
2012-10-13 09:31:25 PM  
East Texas Patent Court=proof that Texas has both 'tards and Tardis.
 
2012-10-13 10:16:46 PM  

Butter-Glider Jockey: This American Life did a story a while back on how and why these Texas courts have become a magnet for patent lawsuits. Link.


Several things are truly sick in that article. One, the USPO is granting patents where there is not just prior art but previous patents. Second was the guy being threatened with a lawsuit but they wouldn't tell him what they were suing him for until they got to court! He should either settle and pay them money or lawyer up and attend court where they'll be told what IP they have infringed. WTF?

The system is broken. The US government needs to figure out a way to cancel any patent that should not have been granted. Problem is I can't see any way of doing this apart from letting everyone take everyone else to court and prove they have prior art. That would take years and since patents only last twenty years they could run out before they could be cancelled.

Maybe the best solution is just to tell the USPO to start being more strict now and refuse to grant any patent where there is prior art, and within about twenty years the whole system should be fixed....

Here in the UK I have a couple of patents myself, and the first thing the UK IPO did was send me a whole bunch of patents it thought were prior art and covered my application and said "Show us your idea is new and not the same as these."
 
2012-10-14 12:57:00 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Maybe the best solution is just to tell the USPO to start being more strict now and refuse to grant any patent where there is prior art, and within about twenty years the whole system should be fixed....


The problem at the moment is that the USPO doesn't have enough clerks to do proper investigations before granting a patent. They need more money; which under current administration policies isn't going to be coming anytime soon.

Personally, I'd jack the application fees(non-refundable) to cover a worthy search, plus make it being tossed out easier if prior evidence is found. The law should be adjusted such that finding actual prior art should short-circuit any lawsuits in progress.
 
2012-10-14 01:05:18 AM  
East Texas: it's like the Texas of Texas.
 
2012-10-14 06:25:16 AM  

Somaticasual: So, is the American Inventors Act doing anything to cut down on the marshall, texas, ridiculousness?


Actually, yes. One of the sections of the AIA (35 USC 299 if you're interested) made it more difficult to join multiple defendants in a single suit. Previously, you could pretty much join all the infringers of a single patent you could find in a single suit, and file the suit in any district court. The new law makes it so that the parties have to basically be acting in concert together to be able to join them. The effect of this is that now trolls/NPEs can't name 20 defendants in a single suit, but have to file 20 suits across the country, which drives the complexity and cost up for them. It also limits where you can sue a defendant, since you are supposed to sue where a defendant is organized or headquarter if possible.This has led to a decrease of suits filed in the Eastern District of Texas, but that has been offset by increases in the federal district court in Delaware, since that's where a fair number of businesses are organized.

Flint Ironstag:
Several things are truly sick in that article. One, the USPO is granting patents where there is not just prior art but previous patents. Second was the guy being threatened with a lawsuit but they wouldn't tell him what they were suing him for until they got to court! He should either settle and pay them money or lawyer up and attend court where they'll be told what IP they have infringed. WTF?

Well, you're not required to negotiate prior to filing a suit, that's not unique to patent litigation or even American law generally. They got served a copy of the complaint when the suit was filed, it's not like you can ambush somebody in federal court by not telling them after you've sued them. I admit it's considered in poor form in most fields to not try to license or work out an agreement first, but it required. I'm sure even after the complaint was filed, there were pretrial hearings and chances to mediate, but you can't force meditation it if either side wants to go to trial and there's no prior mediation/arbitration agreement.


The system is broken. The US government needs to figure out a way to cancel any patent that should not have been granted. Problem is I can't see any way of doing this apart from letting everyone take everyone else to court and prove they have prior art. That would take years and since patents only last twenty years they could run out before they could be cancelled.

There are processes for that already, and the AIA made changes that arguably make it easier to challenge applications and issued patents. Third parties can submit prior art while an application is still pending, and there are multiple types of reviews available after a patent has issued that third parties can instigate at the PTO. These reviews aren't exactly cheap, but they are usually cheaper than seeking a declaratory judgment in a federal district court somewhere. What you sound like you want is for it to be easier for the PTO to invalidate existing patents and reject applications, but that would require a substantive change in the law.


Maybe the best solution is just to tell the USPO to start being more strict now and refuse to grant any patent where there is prior art, and within about twenty years the whole system should be fixed....

That's ultimately Congress's job, since it passes the statutes that define what is patentable. Yes, judges and the PTO interpret the law and those interpretations are not static, but they are still bound by the statute and prior case law. The PTO is bound by decisions from the judiciary, it can't raise the standards for patentability on its own. Congress recently made the largest substantive change to patent law in 50 years, and did change many aspects of novelty and obviousness. If Congress wanted to make it significantly harder to get a patent by expanding the definition of obviousness or novelty, it could have done so. Same thing with excluding software patents. Congress has several times excluded specific subject matter from patentability, if it wanted to make software or business methods ineligible, it could have done that too.


Here in the UK I have a couple of patents myself, and the first thing the UK IPO did was send me a whole bunch of patents it thought were prior art and covered my application and said "Show us your idea is new and not the same as these."

The US is no different in that regard. When an examiner gets an application, he or she figures out if it is eligible subject matter, goes through the procedural requirements of the application, does a prior art search, determines what is relevant and how it compares to the claimed invention, and issues a rejection if application is not novel or obvious over the prior art. Historically, the overwhelming majority of patents receive an initial rejection for some reason or another.. If you get an initial rejection, you can either amend what you claim or argue why the examiner was wrong. If the examiner still rejects and makes it a final rejection, you can continue to ask for reexaminations (for a fee) and argue or appeal to a board within the PTO. I'm not all that familiar with UK IPO procedure, but I'd imagine they have similar systems.
 
2012-10-14 07:47:23 AM  
If you are looking for work, the US Patent Office is desperately seeking employees with strong technical backgrounds that can help them prevent handing out unwarranted technical patents.
 
2012-10-14 09:21:32 AM  
Too bad it would take an act of Congress to invalidate patents held by companies that don't make progress towards making those patents functional. (literally, if I read some of the above posts correctly)

Especially with coding or programming, if you can't make a program that at least looks like it does as you've patented within 5 years, clearly you're a patent troll. And if you do make a program, and someone else with no prior knowledge of your code comes up with a different code that has the same results, then it's not infringing.

Another thing, it's just common decency, if you feel you're being infringed, inform the other party that you feel their work is infringing on patent XYZ, before you sue. If not, then you're broadcasting that you're a pretentious, ball-sucking douchebag looking for a damn handout.
 
2012-10-14 09:41:53 AM  

Saberus Terras: Too bad it would take an act of Congress to invalidate patents held by companies that don't make progress towards making those patents functional. (literally, if I read some of the above posts correctly)

Especially with coding or programming, if you can't make a program that at least looks like it does as you've patented within 5 years, clearly you're a patent troll. And if you do make a program, and someone else with no prior knowledge of your code comes up with a different code that has the same results, then it's not infringing.

Another thing, it's just common decency, if you feel you're being infringed, inform the other party that you feel their work is infringing on patent XYZ, before you sue. If not, then you're broadcasting that you're a pretentious, ball-sucking douchebag looking for a damn handout.


Problem with a five year rule or similar is that a genuine inventor could easily spend five years trying to get it into production. Read the James Dyson book. He invented the cyclonic vacuum cleaner and lots of little other innovations but it took him ten years to reach production, while many of the existing manufacturers copied and stole his tech that he had demonstrated to them when trying to sell it to them.

For ten years he could have been classed as a troll, but he was genuinely innovating and trying to licence and/or manufacture his patent.
 
2012-10-14 09:43:59 AM  

Fat Bobcat:
Well, you're not required to negotiate prior to filing a suit, that's not unique to patent litigation or even American law generally. They got served a copy of the complaint when the suit was filed, it's not like you can ambush somebody in federal court by not telling them after you've sued them. I admit it's considered in poor form in most fields to not try to license or work out an agreement first, but it required. I'm sure even after the complaint was filed, there were pretrial hearings and chances to mediate ...


Not negotiate. According to the article they would not even tell him which specific patent they were claiming he was infringing until they revealed it in court at trial.

How could you prepare a defence without knowing what patent you are accused of infringing?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-14 09:45:05 AM  
Too bad it would take an act of Congress to invalidate patents held by companies that don't make progress towards making those patents functional. (literally, if I read some of the above posts correctly)

I have suggested that applications for software patents be accompanied by a working model, i.e. source code. The source code would be published as part of the patent application.

This change might be within the discretion of the patent office. I read many years ago that patent examiners started requiring working models before they would issue patents for perpetual motion machines.
 
2012-10-14 09:47:09 AM  
FTA: "And what was especially galling to Jeff, when he called them to ask, what am I stealing from you guys? They wouldn't tell him.

Jeff Kelling
That was a question they wouldn't answer. They said they wouldn't answer that until we got into court. So they wouldn't even identify what parts of our business or what they thought we were doing to use their technology.

Ira Glass
But to go to court to answer that question was going to cost money, a lot of money."
 
2012-10-14 10:18:06 AM  

INTERTRON: TL;DR:

Patent trolls actually do hold prior art as a result of buying the company that initially used the invention.
While the patent was filed after the infringement occurred, the prior art occurred before it.

It is a trollerific business model, though


Damn, I'd forgotten all about Rawhide.
 
2012-10-14 12:51:46 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Technically what the court ruled was that the websites the company has made since 2006 infringe on the 1998 patent, and the websites they had made from 1996-1998 did not invalidate the patent.

Either way it seems like a bad ruling, but not surprising out of Texas.


How much money does the court make off the lawsuits?
 
2012-10-14 12:56:57 PM  
sure beats working for a living.
 
2012-10-14 12:57:57 PM  
Here i sit,
cheeks a-flexin'
just gave birth
to another texan!
 
2012-10-14 12:58:59 PM  

malaktaus: East Texas: it's like the Texas of Texas.



wanna' know why?

its the most "southern" of texas. it gets alot of influence from the deep, deep south.
 
2012-10-15 07:54:00 AM  

INTERTRON: TL;DR:

Patent trolls actually do hold prior art as a result of buying the company that initially used the invention.
While the patent was filed after the infringement occurred, the prior art occurred before it.

It is a trollerific business model, though


So Apple is going to sue Paramount now?

Lost Thought 00: If you are looking for work, the US Patent Office is desperately seeking employees with strong technical backgrounds that can help them prevent handing out unwarranted technical patents.


Looks like Apple is going to be screwed.
 
2012-10-15 10:33:28 AM  

Fat Bobcat: Several things are truly sick in that article. One, the USPO is granting patents where there is not just prior art but previous patents.


Actually, that's a thing that's truly sick in the reporting. If they bothered actually talking to a patent attorney or patent agent or anyone at the USPTO, or bothered doing the tiniest bit of research, they would have learned about continuation applications. The previous patents, being parents of the continuations, are not "prior" art, because they all share the same priority date.
 
2012-10-15 10:34:52 AM  
Sorry, that should have been a reply to Flint Ironstag.
 
2012-10-15 10:37:55 AM  

Flint Ironstag: According to the article they would not even tell him which specific patent they were claiming he was infringing until they revealed it in court at trial.

How could you prepare a defence without knowing what patent you are accused of infringing?


As noted above, the article is wrong. The plaintiff has to name the patent in the complaint, long before trial. If they tried to keep it secret until they were "in court at trial," it would not be allowed in as evidence, as it would be after the discovery period.
It's typical NPR reporting - interview someone who says something, never bother to verify if it's true or not, because research is haaaaaard.
 
2012-10-15 01:43:28 PM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: According to the article they would not even tell him which specific patent they were claiming he was infringing until they revealed it in court at trial.

How could you prepare a defence without knowing what patent you are accused of infringing?

As noted above, the article is wrong. The plaintiff has to name the patent in the complaint, long before trial. If they tried to keep it secret until they were "in court at trial," it would not be allowed in as evidence, as it would be after the discovery period.
It's typical NPR reporting - interview someone who says something, never bother to verify if it's true or not, because research is haaaaaard.


They would have to name the patent, but would they have to name exactly how the defendant violated it? That is, if you own a vague and complicated patent, and sue somebody with a huge website, would they have to state exactly what part of the website violated exactly what part of the patent?
 
2012-10-15 04:16:24 PM  

Geotpf: Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: According to the article they would not even tell him which specific patent they were claiming he was infringing until they revealed it in court at trial.

How could you prepare a defence without knowing what patent you are accused of infringing?

As noted above, the article is wrong. The plaintiff has to name the patent in the complaint, long before trial. If they tried to keep it secret until they were "in court at trial," it would not be allowed in as evidence, as it would be after the discovery period.
It's typical NPR reporting - interview someone who says something, never bother to verify if it's true or not, because research is haaaaaard.

They would have to name the patent, but would they have to name exactly how the defendant violated it? That is, if you own a vague and complicated patent, and sue somebody with a huge website, would they have to state exactly what part of the website violated exactly what part of the patent?


Yep. They have to specify which claims were infringed, and how.
 
2012-10-15 05:26:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: According to the article they would not even tell him which specific patent they were claiming he was infringing until they revealed it in court at trial.

How could you prepare a defence without knowing what patent you are accused of infringing?

As noted above, the article is wrong. The plaintiff has to name the patent in the complaint, long before trial. If they tried to keep it secret until they were "in court at trial," it would not be allowed in as evidence, as it would be after the discovery period.
It's typical NPR reporting - interview someone who says something, never bother to verify if it's true or not, because research is haaaaaard.


That makes more sense. But that's bad reporting. That's not just a little error, that's a key element of what they are complaining about. If that's false what else have they got wrong?
 
2012-10-15 05:49:07 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: According to the article they would not even tell him which specific patent they were claiming he was infringing until they revealed it in court at trial.

How could you prepare a defence without knowing what patent you are accused of infringing?

As noted above, the article is wrong. The plaintiff has to name the patent in the complaint, long before trial. If they tried to keep it secret until they were "in court at trial," it would not be allowed in as evidence, as it would be after the discovery period.
It's typical NPR reporting - interview someone who says something, never bother to verify if it's true or not, because research is haaaaaard.

That makes more sense. But that's bad reporting. That's not just a little error, that's a key element of what they are complaining about. If that's false what else have they got wrong?


Well, they were also wrong about lots of patents being filed "for the same invention, omgz!" Rather, it was several patents with the same title, but being filed on different inventions. Titles have no legal weight - if you look, there are literally tens of thousands of patents titled "engine".
In this case, it was an even more egregious error - they were lots of patents sharing the same title, because they were all filed as continuations from a single application with that title. By definition, they were going to have the same title.

I'll be the first to say the patent system has some issues, and I'll even identify those issues and what the solutions should be (mainly around the area of hiring and retaining better examiners and giving them the time and tools to do their work, as well as changing some of the rules around what counts as estoppel for litigation, since that could encourage a more cooperative atmosphere during prosecution), but these articles just spread tons of FUD around. For example, just last week, I was talking to someone who thought the first-to-file change meant that (i) prior art was abolished, and (ii) you didn't have to actually invent the thing you were claiming. Not their fault: it's the media spreading this bullshiat around.
 
2012-10-16 10:31:08 AM  

Theaetetus: Geotpf: Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: According to the article they would not even tell him which specific patent they were claiming he was infringing until they revealed it in court at trial.

How could you prepare a defence without knowing what patent you are accused of infringing?

As noted above, the article is wrong. The plaintiff has to name the patent in the complaint, long before trial. If they tried to keep it secret until they were "in court at trial," it would not be allowed in as evidence, as it would be after the discovery period.
It's typical NPR reporting - interview someone who says something, never bother to verify if it's true or not, because research is haaaaaard.

They would have to name the patent, but would they have to name exactly how the defendant violated it? That is, if you own a vague and complicated patent, and sue somebody with a huge website, would they have to state exactly what part of the website violated exactly what part of the patent?

Yep. They have to specify which claims were infringed, and how.


In that this was in the Eastern District of Texas, the patent rules that this court has in place would come into play. These rules require not only identification of the patent, but the explicit claim that is asserted must be set forth in very fine detail in the patent infringment contentions. By the same token the infringers must in very fine detail put forward at an early stage all basis for contending that a patent is invalid. Failure to do so has resulted in claims or counter claims being dismissed and evidence of them barred at trial.

From the rules-
Not later than 10 days before the Initial Case Management Conference with the Court, a party
claiming patent infringement must serve on all parties a "Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
Infringement Contentions." Separately for each opposing party, the "Disclosure of Asserted Claims
and Infringement Contentions" shall contain the following information:
(a) Each claim of each patent in suit that is allegedly infringed by each opposing party;
(b) Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device, process, method,
act, or other instrumentality ("Accused Instrumentality") of each opposing party of which the party
is aware. This identification shall be as specific as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus must be identified by name or model number, if known. Each method or process must be identified
by name, if known, or by any product, device, or apparatus which, when used, allegedly results in
the practice of the claimed method or process;
(c) A chart identifying specifically where each element of each asserted claim is found within each
Accused Instrumentality, including for each element that such party contends is governed by 35
U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality
that performs the claimed function;
 
2012-10-16 02:37:14 PM  

Theaetetus:
I'll be the first to say the patent system has some issues, and I'll even identify those issues and what the solutions should be (mainly around the area of hiring and retaining better examiners and giving them the time and tools to do their work, as well as changing some of the rules around what counts as estoppel for litigation, since that could encourage a more cooperative atmosphere during prosecution), but these articles just spread tons of FUD around. For example, just last week, I was talking to someone who thought the first-to-file change meant that (i) prior art was abolished, and (ii) you didn't have to actually invent the thing you were claiming. Not their fault: it's the media spreading this bullshiat around.


Yeah, we've always had a First To File system and we have prior art.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report