|
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 01:54 PM EST |
"I also think courts should defer more to the
reexamination process, allowing the USPTO to do its job"
This seems like the most logical process to me. If a patent is
to be used in litigation, it should be required to go through
a reexamination before hand. A simple reexamination of two
apple patents so far have preliminarily voided them. that in
itself would have saved a ton of time and money in the court.
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Doghouse on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 02:02 PM EST |
Absent some degree of limit, and given that the resources of the judicial system
are finite, I'd have to point out that one party's "justice achieved"
(via an interminable case) could of necessity be another's "justice
denied" (because of an inability to get into court in the first place).
Some degree of limitation on how much can be litigated at one shot seems not
only reasonable but essential. And frankly the idea that any litigant be allowed
to throw a whole portfolio of patents at the legal system in hopes that, buried
somewhere within it, is one minor instance of whose validity they can convince a
jury, fills me with horror. It's reasonable to ask them to pull out a few choice
examples; if they can't find prevail on those, they shouldn't be in court.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|