Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
groklaw.net
Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
#2I was afraid that Groklaw wouldn't be any good now that PJ isn't heading it up anymore, but I really shouldn't have worried. Still informed, insightful, opinionated, and funny.
Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
#3From the comments: Taking a weapon that is susceptible to a search for prior art, up against a company that specializes in search is a bad plan.
Hah. Wonder if Lodsys will sue their lawyers?
Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
#4TL;DR: "Most reexamination requests rely on a finding of obviousness, which is a far more subject[ive] standard than demonstrating a lack of novelty. A lack of novelty can be established by any one piece of prior art that discloses each of the key elements of claimed invention. In each of these cases Google has identified not one, but five separate pieces of prior art that each alone demonstrates a lack of novelty in the critical Lodsys claims."
Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
#5TL;DR: "Most reexamination requests rely on a finding of obviousness, which is a far more subject[ive] standard than demonstrating a lack of novelty. A lack of novelty can be established by any one piece of prior art that discloses each of the key elements of claimed invention. In each of these cases Google has identified not one, but five separate pieces of prior art that each alone demonstrates a lack of novelty in…
If this is true, surely the judge will ask: if each of these claims can be invalidated by five separate pieces of prior art, why in the world were the patents granted in the first place?
Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
#6Equally interesting is that one of Lodsys's targets is seeking discovery in Arizona of whether Lodsys is a cat's paw of Intellectual Ventures: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=201108171318536
Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
#7From the comments: Taking a weapon that is susceptible to a search for prior art, up against a company that specializes in search is a bad plan. Hah. Wonder if Lodsys will sue their lawyers?
For what?
Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
#8TL;DR: "Most reexamination requests rely on a finding of obviousness, which is a far more subject[ive] standard than demonstrating a lack of novelty. A lack of novelty can be established by any one piece of prior art that discloses each of the key elements of claimed invention. In each of these cases Google has identified not one, but five separate pieces of prior art that each alone demonstrates a lack of novelty in…
If this is true, surely the judge will ask: if each of these claims can be invalidated by five separate pieces of prior art, why in the world were the patents granted in the first place?
aren't like 80% of patents invalidated on reexamination? (which is, of course, significantly different than 80% of patents being invalid)
the judges are probably pretty used to crappy patents.
Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
#9I was afraid that Groklaw wouldn't be any good now that PJ isn't heading it up anymore, but I really shouldn't have worried. Still informed, insightful, opinionated, and funny.
I wish they will do more so every news piece will stop quoting the terrible Florian Muller
Re: Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys
#10From the comments: Taking a weapon that is susceptible to a search for prior art, up against a company that specializes in search is a bad plan. Hah. Wonder if Lodsys will sue their lawyers?
For what?
Not checking for prior art when filing the patent application. Sorry, I guess my comment above looked like I was talking about the current litigation.