4 ms·

So, I've not read much of this kind of stuff before. Can someone tell me if the following response is just a standard legal way of talking: 43. For example,

So, I've not read much of this kind of stuff before. Can someone tell me if the following response is just a standard legal way of talking: 43. For example, US Patent No. 5,592,405 (Assignee Texas Instruments) discloses: “There is thus a need in the art for a system which handles multi-processors having multi-memories such that the address space from all of the memories is available to one or more processors concurrently[.]” 2:5-9. Answer: Altair Logix does not dispute the quoted language comes from U.S. Patent No. 5,592,405 to the extent it is quoted correctly. Altair denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 43. It's just very odd, as there is literally nothing else in the paragraph that they are "denying". Now it seems clear, that they just tack on "denies everything else in this paragraph" to every single thing they say, but why? Is it better to deny some unknown thing in case you miss it, than to not respond to it in a legal document? if so, why is that? Is there some other reason for it?

freejazz 5y ago
They are denying the claims in the patent... that there is a need for blah blah blah. Source: I litigate patents
josaka 5y ago
It's weird, but standard. These exchanges are a formal way of fleshing out what the parties do and do not dispute. Both sides limit what the agree to as much as they can with a straight face, and everything is qualified as much as possible to make it hard to pin you down on something later, after you've learned more about your and their case, e.g., they might disagree that TI is the assignee, or that the language is properly part of the patent b/c it was amended during prosecution or by a certificate of correction.
toyg 5y ago
They accept that the text comes from the US patent, while not accepting what the text states. It's like two people arguing, one going "The professor yesterday said X is true" and the other replying "Yes, indeed he said that yesterday, but that doesn't mean X is actually true".

freejazz 5y ago

They are denying the claims in the patent... that there is a need for blah blah blah. Source: I litigate patents

josaka 5y ago

It's weird, but standard. These exchanges are a formal way of fleshing out what the parties do and do not dispute. Both sides limit what the agree to as much as they can with a straight face, and everything is qualified as much as possible to make it hard to pin you down on something later, after you've learned more about your and their case, e.g., they might disagree that TI is the assignee, or that the language is properly part of the patent b/c it was amended during prosecution or by a certificate of correction.

toyg 5y ago

They accept that the text comes from the US patent, while not accepting what the text states. It's like two people arguing, one going "The professor yesterday said X is true" and the other replying "Yes, indeed he said that yesterday, but that doesn't mean X is actually true".