|
Authored by: jkrise on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 12:15 PM EST |
The litigant with the largest patent pool would be the most likely to
succeed...
Ir-respective of the quality of the patents, and in my
post, I have suggested a method to solve this vexatious problem. Let us say,a
patentee alleges that the defendant has infringed on 100 patents. He must be
allowed to present evidence for ALL THE 100 patents, instead of compelling him
to reduce it to 3 or 4. But there should be 2 conditions:
1. If only 3
out of the 100 patents are found to be infringed; the damages must be computed
as 3 / 100 * price of infringing product. Such a formula encourages the patentee
to bring lesser patents to suit.
2. Additionally; all 100 patents must
be re-examined preliminarily, and conclusively. A 10-fold penalty has to be
levied on every invalid patent, brought in suit. Suppose 67 patents out of the
100 are found to be conclusively invalid. The plaintiff should be fined 67 * 10
* full price of allegedly infringing product of defendant.
Under such
a system, the court is not arbitrarily restricting the number of allegedly
genuine, valuable patents that are brought in suit. It is the plaintiff who
makes a calculated decision on how many patents to bring. If he seriously feels
all 100 are genuine, valuable, and infringed, let him bring it on, and be
rewarded. Else if brings on just 3, it is the plaintiff's decision, not an
artificial restriction from the court.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|