« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: loop or attorney comment on this...

By: zzfan in IDCC | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 18 Nov 11 11:44 PM | 319 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications
Msg. 43767 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 43753 by Longtimer)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

One thing is certain, change is almost guaranteed except out of vending machines. Once the legal profession discovered that claims construction was a exercise unretrained by objectivity, the infringers have pounded away at every claims construction rendered by the judges and special masters. Due to the subjective nature of claims construction, continued challenges have led to what appears contradictory decisions. It has become a first row seat in a Philosophy 101 class and unfortunately the answers to a question are only good until the next class. Technology patent litigation is just now forming a ground floor. So long as IDCC is in the business of establishing methods for establishing and connecting the pipes and maintaining the flow from the sender to the receiver, we should not have too many problems because the standards bodies will guide the use. Companies that provide optional methods and use of the terminals being used at the ends of our pipes will run into a continual problem of identification of their functional use. I suspect that the mere ability to download a function to a terminal will not be extended to infringement claims against manufacurers and users of the terminals who opt not to use the invention of the claimant. It makes sense to me to limit the claims of one touch to the vendors and users of its system and not include the terminal manufactures. I am not a patent attorney, but I hope this helps.

MO
loop


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
loop or attorney comment on this...
By: Longtimer
in IDCC
Fri, 18 Nov 11 8:40 PM
Msg. 43753 of 48237

Is this of concern at all as CAFC considers the IDCC case? It's lengthy, and may have no relevance but I was bothered by a couple references.

Typhoon Touch Technologies v. Dell et al (CAFC 2009-1589) precedential; Judges Radar, Newman (author), Prost
http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2011/11/means_on_the_wind.html#more

What the CAFC is actively doing in several statute sections is creating self-contradictory case law, so as to more readily excercise bias towards large corporations 
.


« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next