3 ms·
My impression is the opposite. Patent cases one hears about seem to start with 137 patents, and the judge throws out all but a few claims of 2. Perhaps this is
by gbhn 15y ago
My impression is the opposite. Patent cases one hears about seem to start with 137 patents, and the judge throws out all but a few claims of 2. Perhaps this is self-selecting, but the impression is that most of the patents granted are, in fact, bogus.
- roc 15y agoWhat you seem to be talking about are infringement suits where the judge throws out consideration of large numbers of patents and claims. That's about whittling down a problem of mind-boggling complexity to a group of questions that can be understood and answered in a reasonable amount of time. Those patents and claims aren't being struck down or ruled 'bogus'. They're just being ruled irrelevant to the meat of the case, to simplify the proceedings. And most claims are thrown out of consideration simply because most patents only include a few independent claims. And as a practical matter if you can rule out infringement of an independent claim you've ruled out any possibility of infringement of its dependent claims.
- bryanlarsen 15y agoI find the Google-Oracle case to be a great example of the bogusness of most patents. They started with hundreds of patents. Then the judge told Oracle to pick their "best five". You would think that if told to pick the best 5 out of hundreds that those at least would be solid. Yet Google has managed to get several of the 5 invalidated...