3 ms·

I think it was challenged in this case. Page 6 of the verdict form asks if the '142 patent claims are valid, so presumably the defendant put on an invalidity c

by josaka 12y ago

I think it was challenged in this case. Page 6 of the verdict form asks if the '142 patent claims are valid, so presumably the defendant put on an invalidity case. (And it would be rare not to.) The prior art would have to pre-date 1997 and practice each element of the asserted claims, which recite some detail in addition to using "business rules" to distribute email. (Usually, it is this detail that makes the difference.) If anyone is curious, it would be instructive to pull briefing from Pacer, and look for any motions for summary judgement of invalidity for a (relatively) concise summary of that part of the case.

josaka 12y ago
Page 29 of the opinion at the following link addresses one of the theories for invalidating the '142 patent. The original patent owner sold the patented product more than a year before filing for a patent, which normally kills your patent. But in this case, they survived on an interesting technicality in this rule, which is that the sale must be in the United States. The court deemed the sale outside the US, and killed the theory. http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/lps/2014/march/10-1067.pdf http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/lps... The America Invents Act eliminated this technicality back in 2013, but this patent was grandfathered.