This is an awesome story. $3+m fr two inventions in 18 months with presumably only pending patents and a prototype. Q: Equiv $ possible today without good (pre-)sales of product, big user base/network effect, or issued patents that have strong infringement and validity proof?https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1258146212450111491 …
-
Courts defer to the USPTO IPR process. Usually litigation is stayed pending the IPR proceeding. Tons of games with this. Not (main stream) news because patents boring. I think you’ll find this interesting:https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/16/real-staggering-cost-getting-patent-ptab/id=85639/ …
What!? That’s the opposite of how it works with trademarks. With tms you stay the cancellation proceeding with the uspto in favor of the court. I would think that the courts would be better than the uspto for getting the right decision no?
-
-
I agree. Broken and backwards. ArtIII court would be more efficient IMO. Each IPR proceeding is for 1 patent and limited as to what types of issues considered. Court can consider all patents and issues in one proceeding. Infgr get more chances to win with IPR system.
-
Very frustrating when the big business everyone assumes is responsible for "all innovation" (that's the reputation FAAG have) is actually behind the scenes busting the balls of smaller patent-holders.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Ahh, trademarks & copyrights & trade secrets. Just as the statutes are written. Except for the platforms ability to escape liability on@their platforms - CDA Sec 230
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.