4 ms·

> The case was initially about patent infringement, and for undisclosed reasons they were all tossed out. Possibly because the patents were invalid due to the

> The case was initially about patent infringement, and for undisclosed reasons they were all tossed out. Possibly because the patents were invalid due to the existence of prior art? Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15875685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15875685

Fricken 9y ago
The prior art cited in that news item only invalidated 'patent 936'. (That's my comment there, 3rd from top). The infringement claims were thrown out earlier than that (September 2017, IIRC).
- opo 9y ago
  >...The infringement claims were thrown out earlier than that (September 2017, IIRC). According to the article, the infringement claims were dropped after Waymo was notified of the USPTO reexamination that was going to be done due to Swildens filing the ex parte reexamination request. >...So he took the unusual step of challenging the 936 patent himself, filing what is called an ex-parte reexamination request. He gathered the prior art he had discovered, completed reams of paperwork, and pulled together his detailed arguments into a 101-page document that he filed with the USPTO on August 1. Waymo dropped the claims relating to the 936 patent on Sep 13. >...Swildens, naturally, thinks his reexamination request played a role. He notes that USPTO had a phone interview with Waymo’s lawyers a few days before, on September 8, at which the examiners presumably told Waymo that a reexamination of the 936 would be going ahead. If the reexamination started while the patent was being actively litigated, Uber and the court would have to be informed. https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit-patent/ https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit...
raywu 9y ago
That had been a good long read; thanks for linking again

4 ms·

> The case was initially about patent infringement, and for undisclosed reasons they were all tossed out. Possibly because the patents were invalid due to the

by powercf 9y ago

Fricken 9y ago
The prior art cited in that news item only invalidated 'patent 936'. (That's my comment there, 3rd from top). The infringement claims were thrown out earlier than that (September 2017, IIRC).
- opo 9y ago
  >...The infringement claims were thrown out earlier than that (September 2017, IIRC). According to the article, the infringement claims were dropped after Waymo was notified of the USPTO reexamination that was going to be done due to Swildens filing the ex parte reexamination request. >...So he took the unusual step of challenging the 936 patent himself, filing what is called an ex-parte reexamination request. He gathered the prior art he had discovered, completed reams of paperwork, and pulled together his detailed arguments into a 101-page document that he filed with the USPTO on August 1. Waymo dropped the claims relating to the 936 patent on Sep 13. >...Swildens, naturally, thinks his reexamination request played a role. He notes that USPTO had a phone interview with Waymo’s lawyers a few days before, on September 8, at which the examiners presumably told Waymo that a reexamination of the 936 would be going ahead. If the reexamination started while the patent was being actively litigated, Uber and the court would have to be informed. https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit-patent/ https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit...
raywu 9y ago
That had been a good long read; thanks for linking again