The system just hasn't been set up with the idea that it's important to protect the public against bad patents. I don't know if a lawsuit of the kind you sugge

The system just hasn't been set up with the idea that it's important to protect the public against bad patents. I don't know if a lawsuit of the kind you suggest could possibly succeed. What I think is more likely is that Congress will eventually absorb the idea that a counterbalance of some kind is necessary. My own proposal is that bringing an infringement case should require the plaintiff to provide objective evidence that the invention is nonobvious. This evidence could be along the lines of what are called the "Graham factors" [0]: commercial success; long-felt but unsolved needs; and failure of others to solve the same problem. This evidence could be challenged by the defendant and would be weighed by the court. This would weaken the presumption that an issued patent is valid; but not, in my opinion, to the point of making the patent valueless. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.#The_Patent_Act_of_1952 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.#The_Pa...