3 ms·

So people seem aghast at this move e.g. Calls of "rent collecting" (which I assume really means "rent seeking" [1]). Michael Carrier (in the article) notes the

by cletus 9y ago

So people seem aghast at this move e.g. Calls of "rent collecting" (which I assume really means "rent seeking" [1]). Michael Carrier (in the article) notes the tribe "played no part" in the drug's development. So the question that occurs to me is what about the tax arrangements made by tech companies to "sell" patents to foreign entities and then lease back the rights in what is transfer pricing [2] by any other name? Those countries and entities played no part in that development either. Not that I'm defending patents in general or in this case. I just wonder if people view the situations similarly. One claim by the company is clearly absurd, calling the patent review board "double jeopardy". It's no mor doubl jeopardy than hearing a case in Federal district and appellate courts is (yes, yes, I know appellate courts don't try facts). The review process is meant to streamline th process and is simply the first step in a judicial review process. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing

pkilgore 9y ago
Your last paragraph sounds odd to an attorney... an appeal is essentially a continuation of the same trial. Really the big problem is that double Jeopardy is a criminal law concept, so Saunders' argument makes no sense. Civil litigation like patent litigation is subject only to the restrictions of res judicata. If 300 million people want to challenge a patent 300 million times, they can (assuming standing, jurisdiction, etc...). But also, we've been reexamining patents forever, which is basically a slower IPR with standard and process tilted in Patent Owner's favor. That could also be done separate from, concurrent with or in addition to civil litigation. I thought the Federal Circuit did a pretty good job on this issue, but then again, their record in front of SCOTUS recently is just awful.

by cletus 9y ago

pkilgore 9y ago

Your last paragraph sounds odd to an attorney... an appeal is essentially a continuation of the same trial. Really the big problem is that double Jeopardy is a criminal law concept, so Saunders' argument makes no sense. Civil litigation like patent litigation is subject only to the restrictions of res judicata. If 300 million people want to challenge a patent 300 million times, they can (assuming standing, jurisdiction, etc...). But also, we've been reexamining patents forever, which is basically a slower IPR with standard and process tilted in Patent Owner's favor. That could also be done separate from, concurrent with or in addition to civil litigation. I thought the Federal Circuit did a pretty good job on this issue, but then again, their record in front of SCOTUS recently is just awful.