It seems the main practice of some Patent Lawyers (and possibly the USPTO -
and some Jury members) is to pretend to do their due diligence.
I say
pretend because Apple was granted a patent by the USPTO which the USPTO later
reviewed and invalidated based on the prior art of a previous
Apple patent.
Yup, Apple's Patent filing Lawyer failed his/her due
diligence in filing for the patent knowing (or reasonably should have known) of
a previous Apple patent.
Then the USPTO failed in the granting of said
patent when they had - in their very files - the previous Apple
patent.
Then the Trial Jury failed when - apparently - the Jury Foreman
appears to have convinced the rest of the Jury they didn't really need to follow
the Court's instructions after all.
Then the Court failed when it decided
what the Jury did was acceptable.
And ... with history caught up (my
opinion of it's representation): Samsung is still faced with the litigation
prospects and the potential of having to pay for infringement on an invalid
"rubber band" patent.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|