4 ms·

"[Marvell] argued in the case that it didn't infringe the patents, which Marvell alleged were obtained improperly by withholding information about prior inventi

"[Marvell] argued in the case that it didn't infringe the patents, which Marvell alleged were obtained improperly by withholding information about prior inventions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Aonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887323984704578203751185147598.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Aonlin... The way I read this, Marvell is claiming that CMU filed for the patent without having done a proper search for prior art? Can anyone dig up the relevant court docs? My legal-fu is not that strong.

chc 14y ago
Marvell was essentially trying to recite the incantation to get a patent invalidated. In order to get a patent thrown out, you need to show that it is not substantially different from prior art, so Marvell unsurprisingly argued that there was prior art which was substantially the same as the patented invention. Assuming they agreed that their products used the technology in the patent, AFAIK this is pretty much the only defense they could have made.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  No. This is incorrect, assuming the newspaper quoted that part right. When you file for a patent, you are required to file all sorts of info, and applicants have a duty to disclose prior art or background information that may be relevant to the patentability of the applicant's invention that they know about. Search for "invention disclosure statements" if you want to know more So, withholding information would be something like "knowingly failing to alert the PTO that you had a previous publication or patent app on the same technology that was abandoned and is now prior art", etc. Again, i'm assuming the newspaper used the right terminology, which is of course, dangerous. Sadly, the federal circuit has set a pretty ridiculously high standard for what constitutes misconduct that would cause you to lose a patent. You are, IMHO, much more likely to get disbarred by the PTO than you are to lose a patent.
  - chc 14y ago
    Hrm, you might be right. My usual reporterese-to-actual-reality heuristic gave me "They said there was some prior art that wasn't noted at the time of the filing," and that is a commonplace situation — but your interpretation makes sense as well. My bad for autopiloting it.

chc 14y ago

Marvell was essentially trying to recite the incantation to get a patent invalidated. In order to get a patent thrown out, you need to show that it is not substantially different from prior art, so Marvell unsurprisingly argued that there was prior art which was substantially the same as the patented invention. Assuming they agreed that their products used the technology in the patent, AFAIK this is pretty much the only defense they could have made.

DannyBee 14y ago
No. This is incorrect, assuming the newspaper quoted that part right. When you file for a patent, you are required to file all sorts of info, and applicants have a duty to disclose prior art or background information that may be relevant to the patentability of the applicant's invention that they know about. Search for "invention disclosure statements" if you want to know more So, withholding information would be something like "knowingly failing to alert the PTO that you had a previous publication or patent app on the same technology that was abandoned and is now prior art", etc. Again, i'm assuming the newspaper used the right terminology, which is of course, dangerous. Sadly, the federal circuit has set a pretty ridiculously high standard for what constitutes misconduct that would cause you to lose a patent. You are, IMHO, much more likely to get disbarred by the PTO than you are to lose a patent.
- chc 14y ago
  Hrm, you might be right. My usual reporterese-to-actual-reality heuristic gave me "They said there was some prior art that wasn't noted at the time of the filing," and that is a commonplace situation — but your interpretation makes sense as well. My bad for autopiloting it.