71–76 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently it's first inventor to file, though I'm not entirely clear on what that means.
Or the first person who has the money to file even if he or she only saw some kids invention on YouTube and got to the patent office first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently it's first inventor to file, though I'm not entirely clear on what that means.
The main difference between the USA's "first inventor to file" and the "first to file" systems in most of the rest of the world is how disclosing the invention publicly by printed publication, use, or sale before you apply for a patent affects patent eligibility. In the "first to file" systems, you lose eligibility. In the "first inventor to file" system of the US, you have a grace period of one year from such disclo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you go to court, the presumption is that the patent is valid. The judge is unlikely to be technical, and he must assume the experts at the patent office did their job. Since the patent office basically rubber stamps anything you send to them, it's a very uphill battle to start with. In my case, we submitted lots of prior art (some over 100 years old) to the court, and of course they shared this with the plaintif…
> The patent office re-rubber stamped the new stack of paper, and the judge disregarded it during the trial. Not sure I understand this -- are you saying the judge took the PO rubber-stamp as proof that though the prior art might be related, it was not disqualifying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the specification is not enabling and novel to one skilled in the art (much less obvious), then it is not valid. Under rexam or court proceedings they will be worth the paper they're printed on. That's an expensive way to determine things, but it sounds like that particular section of art at the patent office isn't doing much. On the other hand they only have to hide one novel idea and unique claim in the list to…
When you go to court, the presumption is that the patent is valid. The judge is unlikely to be technical, and he must assume the experts at the patent office did their job. Since the patent office basically rubber stamps anything you send to them, it's a very uphill battle to start with. In my case, we submitted lots of prior art (some over 100 years old) to the court, and of course they shared this with the plaintif…
If the executive branch always did its job correctly we'd hardly need courts.
People usually think of incentivizing R&D in general, but patents also help to prevent trade secrets. A trade secret can be kept secret indefinitely and can potentially be lost if the company loses interest or is shut down. Patents help encourage publishing advances in technology so that they eventually advance the public domain. If they weren't interested in that then they probably wouldn't make patents expire.
> A 2012 study found that notorious patent troll Intellectual Ventures divides its portfolio among over 1000 different shell companies. Someone, somewhere must have written the "SELECT shell_company_id ..." query that ensures the correct company is put on the litigation letter. If you ever find yourself in that situation, stop and think for a second about what you are doing.
Don't know where you're going with this, but my brain assumes that it is a new patent for a method of managing shell companies to enforce patents.