tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6213468821214215420..comments2024-03-19T10:15:37.338+00:00Comments on The IPKat: No more "nonsense on Stolts" or damages for infringing an invalid patentVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-83959587680642597952013-07-06T21:11:45.629+01:002013-07-06T21:11:45.629+01:00Well Gordon would say all that wouldn't he?
A...Well Gordon would say all that wouldn't he?<br /><br />And, Mr Kat, just because the Supreme Court agrees with you does not make you right. see my comment on the UKHL decision soon to be posted on the more-recent lilly regeneron blog post.<br /><br />If someone infringes my patent and I win a few pounds in damages and then spend it on cakes, when may I eat those cakes safe in the knowledge that I will not have to sell them to re-pay the damages should at some point, ie anytime, in the future, some invalidity troll will have my patent revoked?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72540423951330185912013-07-03T22:56:52.779+01:002013-07-03T22:56:52.779+01:00I have to say I'm pleased with this result. As...I have to say I'm pleased with this result. As someone who works in the industry I was always both annoyed and embarrassed that the courts would make someone pay out millions of pounds for "infringing" a patent that by that stage had been retrospectively revoked.<br /><br />If I remember correctly, CIPA magazine was somewhat dubious about the Stolt judgement when it came out, and suspected it wouldn't last.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-50161738074120900322013-07-03T21:04:13.425+01:002013-07-03T21:04:13.425+01:00The Fresenius case is much more complicated than t...The Fresenius case is much more complicated than that.<br />Critical issues include timing and whther or not an Article III case was fully and finally decided (it was not). It is less a matter of 'deference' and more a matter that the Article III decision was not complete before the Article I decision came back and mooted the matter.<br /><br />Newman in her dissent is advocating a change in law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5400806913185140292013-07-03T16:59:05.203+01:002013-07-03T16:59:05.203+01:00Interesting to see PatentlyO's report yesterda...Interesting to see PatentlyO's report yesterday of Fresenius v Baxter where a finding of invalidity in re-examination by the USPTO superseded a Federal Circuit finding of validity. Again an example of a Court having to defer to a patent office.<br /><br />(http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/07/fresenius-v-baxter-pto-reexamination-decision-trumps-prior-decisions-by-both-the-district-court-and-the-federal-circuit.html)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64267334007739860472013-07-03T11:13:15.670+01:002013-07-03T11:13:15.670+01:00More generally I've found that there is little...More generally I've found that there is little to be lost in claiming too broadly in the first place, and there can be substantial commercial advantages in doing so. Clearly there are specific situations where it is unwise, but in general the system tends to reward claiming broadly and rarely punishes a party for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-50452500338596635402013-07-03T10:46:49.017+01:002013-07-03T10:46:49.017+01:00I think this decision will provoke more opposition...I think this decision will provoke more oppositions at the EPO. I think the EPO backlog is set to swell even more. I think this decision tips the balance towards bifurcation of infringement and validity. <br /><br />The German courts are forbidden from examining validity while a Patent Office opposition is pending. They are understandably therefore rather keen on interim injunctive relief. <br /><br />So, from the beginning, in 1978, Germans have filed two out of every three oppositions at the EPO. All those German-filed oppositions are mainly there to show the German infringement courts that it would be unsafe to enjoin the infringer. So you could argue that, at least for the Opponent, the longer the pendency of the opposition, the better. MaxDreinoreply@blogger.com