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
Possible Solution: Forfit Patent | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Possible Solution: Forfit Patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 01:44 PM EDT

To deal with those willing to abuse their patent grants by arguing a much broader reading of the patent then that which was granted by the USPTO, I suggest the following.

    A: A requirement by Law that a Patent Licensor/Enforcer must present to the potential Licensee/defendant a document outlining the clear extent of what the Licensor/Enforcer views as the scope of the Patent.
    B: This will allow the Licensee/Defendant to review the patent in the context of the documents available at the USPTO. If the Licensee/Defendant feels the description is broader then what was granted, a petition can be made to the USPTO Tribunal to review the definition that's attempting to be enforced.
    C: A tribunal of Patent Examiners set up at the USPTO which the Licensee/defendant can then provide the Patent Definition Document to who will then examine the document within the context of the actual Patent the USPTO granted. This, of course, would include examination into the full history to get a clear indication of the true four corners the patent is supposed to fit into.
    D: If the examiners find the Patent document is within that which the USPTO actually granted - then the Tribunal can confirm to the Licensee/Defendant the validity.
Note: This, of course, would not preclude the potential licensee/defendant from seeking other avenues - such as seeking prior art to invalidate the patent.
    E: If the Patent document is in a reasonable grey area - sometimes within the scope, sometimes reasonably outside the scope - then the Tribunal can identify what falls within and put limits on those that fall outside the scope.
    F: If the Patent document falls well outside the scope of what was granted, the Tribunal can find the patent forever invalidated due to abuse (whether deliberate or not) of the Patent Grant.
The more I think about it, the more this comes across as a valid idea that should work to decrease the failures of the patent system while not causing harm to those who are properly making use of the patent system.

Initially, a bunch of truly valid patents may well be invalidated due to abuse of how the patents are being enforced. But the Patent Lawyers - and patent owners both - would quickly learn that they are not allowed to abuse their patents.

If they wish to keep the valid patents, then enforce within the four corners that the USPTO granted the patent for.

Caveat: This speaks of patent use in general. I still feel software patents, in specific, are patents on abstract ideas and therefore should not be patentable subject matter.

RAS

[ 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 )