View Single Post
Old 08-11-2011, 11:29 AM   #18
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,726
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by anamardoll View Post
Harry, I realize it's not the fault of the court -- that's why I say they should have the option to review the patent at time of suit and say "no, this patent is ridiculous".
Well, at least in the UK, what tends to happen is this:
Company A sues company B for violating a patent.
Company B responds that they don't violate it, but also counterclaims for revocation of the patent on as many grounds as they can think of, normally including lack of inventive step and obviousness over <other published works>.
So in effect the judge does get to decide both sides of the argument, as he can declare the patent invalid by upholding any of the counterclaims.
That is why suing to enforce patents isn't the no-brainer people might think it is, as you can end up losing all value from your patent.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote