|Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 07:12 AM EDT|
|What PolR points out is that the law does not insist on very narrow literal|
This means that the USPTO evaluation of prior art can be fatally flawed because
of the law permitting broader claims construction than the USPTO.
However, the other point PolR pointed out was that the argument has to be made
early enough in the case and preferably at claims construction time. In that
case, the defendant can invalidate the patent in the court by raising the prior
art that the doctrine of equivalents argument has introduced.
The defendant has not been ambushed after stipulating that they won't try to
invalidate the patent in court. That was the effect in this case.
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]