View Single Post
Old 08-29-2012, 09:51 AM   #371
Graham
Wizard
Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Graham ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,583
Karma: 30624239
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Device: Sony PRS-650, Nexus 4, HP Touchpad, Nexus 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
I don't think there would have been a jury in a patent case, it is certainly common for their to be judge-only cases. They are such complicated issues that they seem frankly unsuited for a jury trial.
The jury here was certainly instructed to look for anticipation, obviousness and prior art and to invalidate the patents if they believed there was sufficient evidence.

Here's the link to the full jury instructions:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/13...structions.pdf

See pp 44 to 47 for the instructions regarding invalidation of the utility patents due to anticipation or obviousness, and pp 66 to 70 for the instructions regarding invalidation of the design patents due to prior art.

Graham
Graham is offline   Reply With Quote