4 ms·
> Unfortunately by not going to trial, they didn't set any precedent The article says: > We’re happy to report that on Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals fo
by Someone1234 8y ago
> Unfortunately by not going to trial, they didn't set any precedent
The article says:
> We’re happy to report that on Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming a lower court decision dismissing the case brought by Blackbird Tech.
- jedberg 8y agoThat's not a precedent. That's just affirming a summary judgment and saying, "Yep, they're right, we're not gonna hear the case either."
- Someone1234 8y agoThe lower court can set a precedent too.
- jedberg 8y agoIt can, but it made a summary judgment. My understanding is that precedent isn't set with a summary judgement.
- Someone1234 8y agoThe upper court's opinion was a summary judgement the lower court wasn't: https://blog.cloudflare.com/bye-bye-blackbird/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/bye-bye-blackbird/
- jmalicki 8y agoThe lower court dismissed the case following a preliminary motion before trial... How is that not considered a summary judgement? Edit: a dismissal is even less precedential than a summary judgement, as summary judgements come after discovery, unlike dismissals.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dharmab 8y agoThe lower court decided not to hear the case because the specific patent was unenforceable. That won't impact any future cases on other patents.
- tyingq 8y agoProbably creates a freebie template of sorts for suits using that specific patent. Supposedly Blackbird has many more though.
- matt4077 8y agoI’m not sure what your preferred outcome would be? A court ruling patents in general unenforceable is rather unlikely. “Patent trolling” obviously isn’t a legal concept, and would be hard to define. Any definition would actually just loop back to patentability, with exactly the result of this lawsuit.