5 ms·
>I'd include some restrictions on the patent itself, and how novel it was. I agree in principle, but back then, the granting of a patent was a sort of de-facto
by beerandt 7y ago
>I'd include some restrictions on the patent itself, and how novel it was.
I agree in principle, but back then, the granting of a patent was a sort of de-facto legal recognition of the novelty. (Whereas today, it's just recognition that you can fill out the forms correctly.)
There wasn't really the need to litigate that aspect of a case. If the patent was issued, it was legally presumed to be novel.
Which is a main part of the reason why patent trolling has gotten worse: lack of legal certainty that any particular patent is valid.
- bdowling 7y ago> back then, the granting of a patent was a sort of de-facto legal recognition of the novelty. There is still a de jure presumption of validity for an issued patent, but it only means that when a patentee sues an alleged infringer, the patentee doesn’t have to first prove the patent is valid. An accused infringer will usually challenge the validity of the patent, it just won’t happen at the earliest stage of the trial.