3 ms·

But it's not immaterial. When a company becomes aware that its patent should not have been granted and can be invalidated, it is entirely (and legally) pertinen

by RobAley 11y ago

But it's not immaterial. When a company becomes aware that its patent should not have been granted and can be invalidated, it is entirely (and legally) pertinent when considering bad faith enforcement actions. In this case, the company is likely now aware that the particular "stolen" arrows in question had been designed and manufactured by that manufacturer many years before this company filed its patent. The company is not protecting itself against copies of an idea that it came up with.

wyattpeak 11y ago
But did it know it before the case? Has it had time to withdraw its claim since this information has become widely known? In fact, does anyone know anything about the company besides what its legal opponents have said? I'm not saying this company is necessarily acting in good faith, but there is an enormous presumption of guilt going on, which started long before anyone started discussing prior art, on a case which is not prima facie unreasonable.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Oh, now I understand! You meant to say that if we ignore everything about the plaintiff, the actions the plaintiff has taken in and out of court, what we know about the patent, and what we know about the products that were actually being sold, we should be able to consider the case in tabula rasa fashion, and give the patent the benefit of the doubt. I guess I was confused because this was in response to something about odious franchising... Except, any particular patent won't get the benefit of the doubt from a jury of software people. We've seen the harm patents have done in our industry, and we're sensitive to the harms they've done in other industries and in society as a whole. There probably are some plaintiffs that would inspire some sympathy from us despite that, but this certainly isn't such a plaintiff.

3 ms·

But it's not immaterial. When a company becomes aware that its patent should not have been granted and can be invalidated, it is entirely (and legally) pertinen

by RobAley 11y ago

wyattpeak 11y ago
But did it know it before the case? Has it had time to withdraw its claim since this information has become widely known? In fact, does anyone know anything about the company besides what its legal opponents have said? I'm not saying this company is necessarily acting in good faith, but there is an enormous presumption of guilt going on, which started long before anyone started discussing prior art, on a case which is not prima facie unreasonable.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Oh, now I understand! You meant to say that if we ignore everything about the plaintiff, the actions the plaintiff has taken in and out of court, what we know about the patent, and what we know about the products that were actually being sold, we should be able to consider the case in tabula rasa fashion, and give the patent the benefit of the doubt. I guess I was confused because this was in response to something about odious franchising... Except, any particular patent won't get the benefit of the doubt from a jury of software people. We've seen the harm patents have done in our industry, and we're sensitive to the harms they've done in other industries and in society as a whole. There probably are some plaintiffs that would inspire some sympathy from us despite that, but this certainly isn't such a plaintiff.