tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1407183820998234477..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Dealing with technical prejudice - and spurious TRIPs pointsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41854911312003079962007-06-26T07:10:00.000+01:002007-06-26T07:10:00.000+01:00Another point of interest in Pozzoli is how it wen...Another point of interest in Pozzoli is how it went in FR and DE. We read in the CA Decision that Rennes came to the same non-infringemeent conclusion as London, but Duesseldorf found infringement. How come?<BR/><BR/>D'dorf doesn't do validity. That's handled by the Federal Patents Court in Munich. Expect its decision not before 2008.<BR/><BR/>The embodiment that Pozzoli accused is rather like the prior art. The art and the acc. emb. both look like an array of overlapping credit cards in a wallet. In London and in Rennes, Patentee was under an impossible squeeze. He couldn't stretch to the accused embodiment without at the same time covering obvious arrangements of discs. Bristows: in D'dorf, how did you see off the Formstein Defence?<BR/><BR/>On its TRUE construction (discs and pack base all mutually parallel) the idea is neat, and the claim inventive. To find infringement, however, you have to force the claim wider. Does a Doctrine of Equivalents perform any useful function? This case shows it doesn't. AND, if it was the DOE that persuaded Pozzoli to take up so much court time in England and France, well then it's nothing more than a public nuisance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com