OT: Patent issues - how to tell when they are really worried

[still just me]

Here's how you know that your patent suit is likely to win in court-
They don't just defend against the suite, they sue you and claim your
patent isn't even valid:

http://www.techspot.com/news/28563-google-countersues-northeastern-university.html

 

[DirtRoadie]

On Feb 7, 4:43 pm, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's how you know that your patent suit is likely to win in court-
> They don't just defend against the suite, they sue you and claim your
> patent isn't even valid:
>
> http://www.techspot.com/news/28563-google-countersues-northeastern-un...

There is nothing the least bit unusual about that.
To make it "ON topic" - It is precisely how Klein lost when (many
years ago) it sued Cannondale for infringing the Klein patent relating
to making a frame from fat, thinwalled aluminum tubes. Asserting
invalidity of a patent is a very standard defense against a claim of
patent infringement and is successful in a surprisingly large
percentage of patent infringement suits.
In its most common form it is just a way of saying "Hey, you didn't
invent anything!"

DR

 

[Clive George]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here's how you know that your patent suit is likely to win in court-
> They don't just defend against the suite, they sue you and claim your
> patent isn't even valid:
>
> http://www.techspot.com/news/28563-google-countersues-northeastern-university.html

T'aint valid over here. Software patenting is bad for you - brings you out
in lawyers, at which point nobody wins but them.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"DirtRoadie" wrote: (clip) Asserting
invalidity of a patent is a very standard defense against a claim of
patent infringement and is successful in a surprisingly large
percentage of patent infringement suits. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Patent Office grants a great many patents which can be invalidated by
this defense, probably because patent clerks decide what to grant and what
to deny. It is easier for them to grant the patent and let the matter be
decided later in the courts, if necessary. A patentable invention must be
*new*, *useful*, and *go beyong the ability of an average, competent
technician*. There is a lot of gray area in those requirements,
particularly the last.

 

[* * Chas]

"DirtRoadie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 7, 4:43 pm, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's how you know that your patent suit is likely to win in court-
> They don't just defend against the suite, they sue you and claim your
> patent isn't even valid:
>
> http://www.techspot.com/news/28563-google-countersues-northeastern-un...

There is nothing the least bit unusual about that.
To make it "ON topic" - It is precisely how Klein lost when (many
years ago) it sued Cannondale for infringing the Klein patent relating
to making a frame from fat, thinwalled aluminum tubes. Asserting
invalidity of a patent is a very standard defense against a claim of
patent infringement and is successful in a surprisingly large
percentage of patent infringement suits.
In its most common form it is just a way of saying "Hey, you didn't
invent anything!"

DR

You really don't get patents here in the US to protect your ideas. You get
them to protect yourself from getting sued by someone else who gets a
patent on your idea or something similar to it.

Chas.

 

[* * Chas]

"Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DirtRoadie" wrote: (clip) Asserting
> invalidity of a patent is a very standard defense against a claim of
> patent infringement and is successful in a surprisingly large
> percentage of patent infringement suits. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The Patent Office grants a great many patents which can be invalidated
by
> this defense, probably because patent clerks decide what to grant and
what
> to deny. It is easier for them to grant the patent and let the matter
be
> decided later in the courts, if necessary. A patentable invention must
be
> *new*, *useful*, and *go beyong the ability of an average, competent
> technician*. There is a lot of gray area in those requirements,
> particularly the last.
>
>

FAQ on applying for a US patent:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/faq.htm#1

Chas.

 

[Marcus Coles]

Clive George wrote:
> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Here's how you know that your patent suit is likely to win in court-
>> They don't just defend against the suite, they sue you and claim your
>> patent isn't even valid:
>>
>> http://www.techspot.com/news/28563-google-countersues-northeastern-university.html
>>
>
> T'aint valid over here. Software patenting is bad for you - brings you
> out in lawyers, at which point nobody wins but them.


Agreed, software and business method patents are counterproductive and
run contrary to the original concept of the patent system.

This is further aggravated in the overloaded USPTO by a lack of searches
by technically qualified examiners for prior art, which could possibly
make a patent invalid.

By allowing patents for actions and algorithms, the US patent system is
severely flawed, creating an environment where patent trolls and lawyers
can work hand in hand to stifle innovation by Americans.
This puts the country at a self imposed disadvantage on the world stage.

Their "solution" to this seems to be an attempt to force US "IP"
regulation on the rest of the world, imperialism at its worst.


Marcus

 

[DirtRoadie]

On Feb 7, 10:53 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "DirtRoadie" wrote:  (clip) Asserting
>
> invalidity of a patent is a very standard defense against a claim of
> patent infringement and is successful in a surprisingly large
> percentage of patent infringement suits. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The Patent Office grants a great many patents which can be invalidated by
> this defense, probably because patent clerks decide what to grant and what
> to deny.  It is easier for them to grant the patent and let the matter be
> decided later in the courts, if necessary.  A patentable invention must be
> *new*, *useful*, and *go beyong the ability of an average, competent
> technician*.  There is a lot of gray area in those requirements,
> particularly the last.

It is not just an issue of the patent examiner's actions and/or
skill / laziness / incompetence. Patent examiners typically rely
primarily on what is on file at the patent office. When a court finds
a patent to be invalid, more often than not, some "prior art" outside
the scope of existing patents comes into play. In the aforementioned
case of Klein v. Cannondale it was the prior "public use" of the
patented invention by a third party.

DR