Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#131

Post by josephlord » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 3:35 PM UTC

dctoedt wrote: post #33

A few points to help put this in context: 1. Technically, the USPTO hasn't yet "invalidated" the patent; it issued a first "Office action" in which it stated that all of the patents claims were unpatentable in view of varying combinations of prior-art references. 2. Institutionally the USPTO is very much aware of the significance of reexamination for a patent in litigation. 3. The Office action was signed by a "prima…

From what I have read elsewhere the 'first Office action' is based purely on the criticisms of the patent before the patent owner has responded defending and justifying the details and trying to explain why the presented prior art doesn't apply. I understand that it is common for many of the claims to eventually upheld even when the 'first office action' goes against them.

This seems to be one step of a number of the way to invalidation but far from a knock-out blow for the whole patent YET. There is a range of possible outcomes including total invalidation, the patent being upheld and perhaps most likely some claims being invalidated narrowing the scope of the patent and making it easier to work around it.

Re: undefined

#132

Post by dctoedt » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 3:52 PM UTC

josephlord wrote: post #131

dctoedt wrote: post #33

A few points to help put this in context: 1. Technically, the USPTO hasn't yet "invalidated" the patent; it issued a first "Office action" in which it stated that all of the patents claims were unpatentable in view of varying combinations of prior-art references. 2. Institutionally the USPTO is very much aware of the significance of reexamination for a patent in litigation. 3. The Office action was signed by a "prima…

From what I have read elsewhere the 'first Office action' is based purely on the criticisms of the patent before the patent owner has responded defending and justifying the details and trying to explain why the presented prior art doesn't apply. I understand that it is common for many of the claims to eventually upheld even when the 'first office action' goes against them. This seems to be one step of a number of the…

You're correct that it's not a knock-out blow --- at least not yet.

Apple could try to convince the patent examiner to change his mind; that strikes me as an uphill battle for them, given the extent of the examiner's written analysis. Or Apple could propose amendments to the claim language and try to convince the examiner that the amendments overcame the rejections.

If Apple were to amend some or all of claims that are pending in the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit, that could have a major impact on the outcome of the lawsuit under the doctrine of "intervening rights"; for example, any portion of the damage award attributable to the amended claim(s) might go away [4].

[4] http://www.guttagiplaw.com/publications/patents/INTERVENING_... (especially page 6)

Re: undefined

#133

Post by thirdtruck » Thu, Dec 20, 2012, 4:08 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #60

zmmmmm wrote: post #46

It's curious that Samsung's lawyers didn't manage to bring about the invalidation during trial, if its lack of validity was evident enough that the patent office is now retracting it. I'm curious if a) Samsung did present the evidence that the patent office relied on to invalidate but it was rejected by the jury or b) Samsung wasn't allowed to present it for some reason or c) Samsung didn't try to present it Option a…

Yeah, I don't get the impression that Samsung's lawyers were the snappiest sharks at the beach. Their incompetence at letting Hogan slip through voir dire is hard to get past... unless they saw it as a deliberate opportunity to have an unfavorable verdict thrown out, I guess.

I would give the team some credit, given the time constraints (they had a lot of other jurors to check, too), and the degree of apparent deception or confusion on Hogan's own part.

Consider timelines, too. Even with all of the oddities in the jury results, the degree of Hogan's specific involvement in swaying the jury only came light after his own public interviews.