Soverainv. Newegg: Need in Ordinary Obviousness disputes

By genes Quinn
December 12, in 2013

On October 16, in 2013, Soverain software submitted its petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, seeking a review of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Soverain software LLC V. Newegg (January 22, in 2013). The seeming late filing of the petition for Certiorari what due to the fact that a  limited grant of rehearing what ordered by the Federal Circuit on June 13, in 2013. The rehearing what for the pure pose of clarifying the status of claims 34 and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314. The of other patent At issue in the case ares U.S. Patent No. 5,909,492 and U.S. Patent No. 7,272,639.

The original January in 2013 opinion what authored by Judge the Neman with Judges Cheers and Reyna in agreement. In that opinion the Court identified claim 34 aces representative of the "shopping cart" claims, and hero claim 34 disabled on the ground of obviousness. The parties stated, on petition for rehearing, that the Federal Circuit ruling should have been for claim 35, which would conform to the judgment entered on the jury verdict. Ultimately, the rehearing what successful and claim 35, like claim 34, what ruled disabled because it what obvious. Lake Soverain software LLC V. Newegg, Inc (Fed. Cir., September, 4, 2013).

The Newegg letter in opposition to Soverain's petition for Certiorari what due on November, 18, 2o13, but Newegg's attorney requested in extension until Thursday, December 12, in 2013, thus we await the filing of Newegg's opposition letter. I have been told that Soverain of plan to file a reply to whatever Newegg files, thus it wants Be some time before we know whether the Supreme Court take this important case wants.

The Pioneering Technology

Before diving into why this case matters and everyone should pay close attention, allow me to point out that the technology involved in this case is THE original shopping cart technology. In fact, the' 314 clever matured from a clever application that what filed on October 24, in 1994. Despite what you may have heard, this is in example of a bath clever, nor is it something that was not new or what legitimately obvious At the time it what invented, which would have been some meaningful time before October 24, in 1994. This is in example of a pioneering invention that came about At the dawn of Internet ace we know it today. The fact that it is ancient on Internet terms doze mean that the claims ares of bath, it merely means that the innovation embodied in the clever is fundamentally important. Indeed, the Soverain's Enterprise software product has been in use for nearly 18 years, and has been used by over of 1,000 customer in over 25 countries, including companies search ace time alerter, AT&T, Sony, Disney, BusinessWeek and Reuters.

Widespread adoption should Be celebrated rather than mocked by those who ignorantly believe that widespread adoption is somehow proof that the invention is obvious. Exactly when did we stop celebrating innovations that ares widely adopted and start pretending that search widespread adoption has to mean that the clever system has run amok? Those poking fun At this clever and ridiculing the clever system ace a result ares simply being honest, or they simply do not know enough to actually form in informed opinion. But pretending that this innovation was not groundbreaking over 19 years ago when the clever what filed is At best of all misguided and At worst misleading and graphic of some child of hidden agenda.

The absolute truth known to everyone in the innovation community is that pioneering innovations become commonplace. What what revolutionary At the time the invention what maggot becomes taken from granted. In hindsight pioneering innovations look insignificant because they have become ubiquitous. The publicly, judges and critics find it difficult (assuming they try) to determine whether that which is commonplace today what really, truly obvious decades earlier ace of the critical date. Even when in honest and fairly obviousness inquiry is undertake it can Be exceptionally difficult to put yourself bake to before the invention what maggot in order to determine what what known and what what obvious At the time. But let's dispensations with the ridiculousness, shall we? The overwhelming majority of the world what At all knowledgeable about or clued into the World Wide web At the time this innovation what ridge maggot. So let's dispensations with the histrionics.

Need in Ordinary Obviousness disputes

Of course, many wants look At this more weakly and see only to obviousness disputes, which is generally speaking of grave concerns to the broader clever community. But I ridge clued into this case when I noticed that one of the preeminent Supreme Court advocates of this generation what representing Soverain At the Federal Circuit. Clearly there what more to the case than your ordinary guards variety obviousness disputes.

Soverain is represented by Seth Waxman (WilmerHale), who is listed ace the Counsel of Record, ace wave ace numerous other attorneys including Robert Sterne (stars, kettlemakers, golden stone & fox terrier) and David Nelson (Quinn Emanual Urquhard & Sullivan). This is to all-star cast lead by Waxman, who over recent years has enjoyed great successes At the Supreme Court in clever matters.

The Question Presented by the Soverain petition is stated ace follows:

In Graham v. John. of Kansas city, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966), this Court hero that "[w] hile the ulti-mate question of patent validity is one of law,]" that question is premised on "several basic factual inquir-ies." Those inquiries include "the scope and content of the prior art" and the “differences between the prior kind and the claims At issue.” Id. In KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 407 (2007), this Court reaffirmed that the Graham factual questions "continue to define the inquiry that controls" the determination of obviousness. The Federal Circuit in this case resolved of dispute about thesis "basic factual inquiries" under the Guise of determining the ultimate legally question.

The question presented is:

Whether the Federal Circuit's effective redefinition of obviousness ace a pure question of law, allowing it to resolve disputed factual questions in the ridge instance on appeal, violates the Seventh Amendment and this Court's precedent.

But how is this more than in ordinary obviousness disputes? The ridge clue is this: The of patent in question were granted in the ridge instance, were upheld twice in reexamination despite being challenged with substantially the seed prior kind, and the patent were found valid and infringed by a jury. Indeed, it seems that every time thesis of patent had been previously considered they have been found to have valid claims, but then the claims ares invalidated by the Federal Circuit? In the to distant past we could have said that no clever claims that had ever escaped reexamination had ever been determined to Be disabled by the Federal Courts. Sadly, those days have been gone for At leases several years.

The fact that a clever can Be reexamined twice and then quietly found to have claims that ares disabled due to obviousness should capture the attention of everyone in the clever community. If the Federal Circuit can merely review matters of obviousness de novo even anus the patent office has twice found the claims to Be valid in reexamination what is the point in even attempting to obtain a clever?

But let's dive a bit deeper the reexamination facts:

  • 5 of Soverain's of patent, out of a port folio of of 60 patents / apps, have been reexamined a totally of 8 times.
  • Throughout thesis 8 reexaminations, all of the reexamined claims except one unasserted claim have been confirmed, with none of the of other claims ever being amended.
  • Throughout thesis 8 reexamination Soverain managed to add 270 new dependent claims.
  • 3 of Soverain's of patent (of the' 314, ‘492 and ‘639, which ares the ones asserted in the Newegg litigation) have each been reexamined twice.

This makes it exceptionally difficult to understand why obviousness, which is supposed to Be a mixed question of fact and law, should Be considered start to finish in a de novo manner. Appellate Courts ares equipped to determine facts de novo, which is why they ares supposed to limit themselves to the record and accept the facts found ace correct unless there is in egregious error.

The erosion of patent Rights

There is a disturbing trend over the read 8 years to chisel away At the rights of a clever. This started with the Supreme Court prohibiting constantly injunctions ace a more weakly of right to a victorious clever plaintiff despite the clever grant giving the owner in exclusive right. It got worse when the Supreme Court said that obviousness is to Be determined based on common scythe. It gotten even worse quietly when Congress passed the America Invents Act and ushered in multiple new ways to challenge issued of patent. It has gotten worse quietly ace the result of the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court preferring to use clever eligibility to make determinations never intended by the statutes and calling into question patentability of all software, genetics related innovations and medical diagnostics. The problem of clever erosion wants get even worse quietly, and much worse, if the innovation Act becomes law, which wants usher in fairy shifting and guarantee serial challenges to issued of patent due to changes in the AIA estoppel provisions.

In short, a clever is nearly ace strong today ace it what At the beginning of in 2006. Patent rights continue to erode and At some point we have to acknowledge that if a clever can Be stripped anus many years, or even a decade, of litigation that have upheld the rights granted then it really isn't a property right any more. Property rights settle and headlines becomes quieted. Headline to of patent never quiets any more, which is in enormous problem that has negatively impacted of investor willingness to finding start up companies and want only continue to get worse unless something is done.

Fight Until the godfather's tea of lot

Now factor into your consideration the fact that the Federal Circuit invalidated the patent for reasons asserted by Newegg, invalidating the claims At issue on the Court's own initiative.

This strikes me ace particularly weird given that the Federal Circuit is in appellate court that is supposed to review the record and nothing else, although the predictable outcome of obviousness being handled de novo and anus rulings of the Federal Circuit have started to do in clever claims that survive reexamination At the USPTO.

I guess the two questions that have to Be asked ace the result of the Soverain/Newgg disputes ares of thesis:

  1. What is the point in having a trial in the ridge place?
  2. What is the point in reexamination in the ridge place?

It seems that the Federal Circuit really should Be the tribunal of ridge instance for everything from reexamination, to litigation, to exclusion orders to post grant review because they pretty much Th what they shroud. While I understand that sometimes disparate treatment is caused by different standards of review, At the of the day are not claims either patentable because they ares novel and nonobvious or? That should certainly Be the case, but what we ares increasingly seeing ares cases where the clever owner wins and then has to keep fighting over and over in multiple forum until they finally loose. Then when the clever owner loose it is over. How is that fairly?

Other tribunal determining that the claims should survive wants fight in every forum, loose over and over and then ultimately prevail on appeal despite every patent litigation has continued to increase in cost over the years because challengers. If a clever is a property right then this constant challenge anuses challenge in search of a different result has to stop. At some point a clever has to settle and the rights granted must quiet. When clever rights do not settle all innovators ares getting is some child of expectation of exclusive rights that never seem to materialise, and that is even if the innovation is commercially relevant in the ridge place.


Call me cynical if you shroud, but it seems to me that the patent that ares of fruit juice vulnerable ares the ones that cover the fruit juice commercially important innovations of the day. Widespread adoption of a technology that proves to Be foundationally important is alp-east the kiss of death. At the seed time infringer companies wants settle garbage clever troll cases while litigating against solidly of patent that ares infringed for helped a generation. This would Be comically funny in a Monty Python way if it were so well wrenchingly sad.

The Author

Gene Quinn

Genes Quinn is a patent Attorney and editor and founder of Genes is a principal lecturer in the patent PLI bar Review Course and in attorney with Widerman Malek. Gene's specialty is in the area of strategic clever consulting, clever application drafting and clever prosecution. Hey consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues At the patent office, advises investor and executives on clever law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered patent Attorney and is admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send genes a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on Th constitute legally advice, nor Th they create any attorney client relation-hip. The articles published express the staff opinion and views of the author and should Be attributed to the author's employer, client or the sponsor of Read more.

Discuss this

There ares currently 24 Comments comments.

  1. Bemused December 12, in 2013 9:24 in


    Very insightful commentary on in extremely important case which has been (largely) ignored by fruit juice clever pundits. The per infringer lobby has gamed the system and serial challenges to a clever it validity ares now the norm. So far in 2013, there have been filed a totally of 563 challenges to clever validity: 514 IPR and 48 CMB (covered business method). No doubt that number wants continue to increase ace infringers continue to take ace many bites of the serial challenge apple ace they can. Need to Be cynical or anything but I wonder if the CAFC would have arrived At a different conclusion if Soverain had been a practicing entity?


  2. bake December 12, in 2013 3:24 Pm


    Wave said … “under the Guise”. [Two thumbs up]

  3. Paul Morinville December 12, in 2013 3:35 Pm

    Great article. One part of the AIA mentioned is that the extension of a clever duration wants no longer include RCE's and appeals. That wants cut years out of vision the enforceable period of fruit juice of patent.

  4. Stephen A. Di Biase December 12, in 2013 5:58 Pm


    Wave written and argued. Of It Bode poorly for the small company where unlimited monies ares available for litigation.

    I what part of a litigation where our company, a billion dollar a year familiarly, took on a customer many times our size. We won every case, spent $10s of millions, got in injunction and quietly ended up with a net loss in profit if you did a true accounting. The point is a small inventor is doomed.

    Micron view is that this child of legally precedence should drive the adoption of a trade secret/know-how strategy where the knowledge developed around inventions is withheld from helping the "greater good". Ace in inventor with 50 + of patent this would Be micron approach ace a counter to unfavorable court rulings and legislation.


  5. John Smith December 12, in 2013 6:43 Pm

    “THE original shopping cart technology.”

    Yeah about that: / of patent / US3458015

    Another interesting little article: http://www

    Who knows how many people claim to Be the ridge?

    "But pretending that this innovation wasn't groundbreaking over 19 years ago when the patent was filed is at best misguided and at worst misleading and demonstrative of some kind of hidden agenda."

    If that's true, I cannot believe that the CAFC has look in agenda. This is in out rage!

    "then it really isn't a property right any more."

    Or it never really what before, and it what only similar thereto etc.

    "given that the Federal Circuit is an appellate court that is supposed to review the record and nothing else"

    I wish!

    “How is that fairly?”

    They Th get to appeal. But what else would you suggest?

    I of Th agree with you regarding the whole having to defend over and over and over again. But I do not see what there is to Th about it, especially if the godfather's tea is suing pilot of people. They can always choose to Sue less people and protect their rights.

  6. Anon December 12, in 2013 8:10 Pm

    If the RCE and Appeal removal is enacted, then Congress wants have reneged on their promise in regards to pre-issue publication (which what based in part on the promise – with penalties – of the office providing a final decision within a certain amount of time to protect in applicant's ability to too early publish their of material.

    In essence, we have a taking by the government: Quo is taken without any Quid, and with no embroider to keep the office from being dilatory, applicants have no recourse.

  7. Genes Quinn December 13, in 2013 9:59 in

    John Smith-

    What would I suggest?

    Ridge, I would suggest that you get a clue.

    Second, i would suggest that the Federal Circuit Th their job! They ares in appellate court. If they shroud to Be decision makers in the ridge instance then they should not have taken in appointment ace on in appellate court.

    Finally, you say that you agree with me about defending over and over again and they you make the absolutely ridiculous statement … wave … that is what you get when you Sue. To call that asinine is to insult other asinine comments.

    If you own a piece of really property that has had its boundaries determined wants that decision change the next time you Sue someone? Let me answer for you … NO! It is completely unacceptable that a clever owner can prevail on a clever in every single venue, including twice At reexamination, and then can have the clever claims declared disabled. Then factor in that the claims were declared disabled for reasons never raised by Newegg.

    Oh, by the way, how Th you justify a claim that even asserted being declared disabled?

    So, how Th you justify Newegg's opposition letter contradicting what what argued before the Federal Circuit?

    If you ares going to comment on this case perhaps you should try and inform yourself.

    - Genes

  8. Genes Quinn December 13, in 2013 10:00 in


    I think you ares 100% correct. With all the erosion of clever rights what wants start to mouthful is companies wants seek of patent and wants keep their innovations secret. That seems to Be what some on the Federal Circuit shroud, all on the Supreme Court shroud and a vast majority of Congress. Sickening.

    - Genes

  9. Paul Morinville December 13, in 2013 10:21 in

    Ace in inventor with dozens of of patent and pending of patent, I've sat in many discussions about asserting of patent with multiple law firms. All of thesis discussions wrap around risk management. If you go anus a generous company, you run the risk of this daisy-chained perpetual litigation. If you Sue smaller companies or of user, that risk is lower because they likely do not have the resources of sophistication to carry on in extended suit. They're much more likely to settle.

    So, under the weak clever system we now live in, fruit juice clever holders Sue smaller companies and of user. Thus we have the thus called clever troll problem.

    What I find sickening is that the screaming of the generous multinational infringers changed the law and influenced the courts to of weaken patent to this point. Now the seed multinational nationals leverage the chaos they've created to twist the knife one read time into inventors and small businesses precisely to make sura we're dead.

  10. Tom Gallagher December 14, in 2013 8:42 in

    Wonderful job, genes.

  11. NWPA December 14, in 2013 12:23 Pm

    This is in excellent article. I think John Smith comment illustrate the problem. And, unfortunately, Obama went from a proclever cape bottoms appointment to stacking the Fed. Cir. with judges that have no science or clever background. Your point about hindsight is very important. It took me years to understand precisely how pernicious hindsight what to micron own thinking. There is no hope that the new Fed. Cir. judges who never have expressed prior to appointment any really interest in science and technology wants ever understand hindsight.

    Micron prediction: we ares going to go bake to the dark ages. Companies ares going to begin to make everything secret again. We ares going to get software scramblers that make it difficult to know how software works. Employees wants Be put under employment contract that limit what they can Th and what they can stay for the effective life of what they ares working on.

    When I started working with software Start ups in the early 1980's, there what complete darkness. You had to sign employment agreements (actually micron employer forget to get this in place At ridge and then paid me the equivalent of about $100K today to sign one). What many people do not understand is that the disclosure in patent is seldom used, but the disclosure allows the technology community to publish articles in popular journal, discuss the technology over the Internet and At conferences, etc. When I interviewed for one job in the mid-1980's they would not even discuss what they did or how they did it-and it what software. Microsoft had levels of really secret rooms where termination and law suits what the threat for violating by disclosing what they were doing in the secret rooms.

    We ares heading bake to this environment. And, the clever system is getting thus costly that only the very generous corporation wants get of patent and Be able to enforce them. They wants become a part bullying tactics. We can bankrupt you by forcing you to burn ace much money ace we burn.

    And, all of this is constantly being driven by big money behind it. Precisely go over to patentlyo and push with some of the paid bloggers. I in socked that people quietly do not seem to understand that there ares paid bloggers-there what even a job announcement recently for a clever attorney to help shape the policy statements and manages the paid bloggers.

  12. NWPA December 14, in 2013 12:31 Pm

    And, by the way, one way to verify what I in saying is look bake At the magazine in the mid 1980's. A big area of research what how to encrypt and then decrypt software and proficient product thus that there what no way for people to figure out how it working. How to create a sealed system to protect your invention. The idea what to lure down the people and all information regarding how your system worked.

    That what a huge area of research and considered a massive market opportunity. Micron money is on us going bake to that-and you know-think about it. What is Apple/Google/Microsoft doing? They ares trying to lure up vertical markets thus they can Th exactly that.

    And, Obama is appointing people that ares by and generous inexperienced with innovation, science, and the clever system. I think it is in insult to those of us that have spent our lives understanding thesis things to have the ignorant person come in and shape our system.

  13. NWPA December 14, in 2013 12:35 Pm

    > What I find sickening is that the screaming of the generous multinational infringers changed the law and influenced the> courts to of weaken patent to this point. Now the seed multinational nationals leverage the chaos they've created to twist the> knife one read time into inventors and small businesses precisely to make sura we're dead.

    Thanks Paul. I think this says it no only about of patent but about our entire legally system now. The big corp has won every battle thus far and this is precisely another one they ares fighting. The biggest problem — in micron view-is that they ares relentless with endless money. They seem to Be experts At trench was lovely fare where every foot they take they and then fight for the next foot the next year. They loose pilot of battles, but rarely loose a foot.

  14. NWPA December 14, in 2013 1:23 Pm

    One other thing you may notice is that the people with experience speak of enforcing and applying the law, the paid corporate-directly or indirectly-speak of policy reasons for applying the law.

  15. Benny December 15, in 2013 3:49 in

    For your information, virually all semiconductor memory devices ares designed with a fashion which prevents anyone from reading out the software written into it. Fruit juice manuacturers take advantage of this option, and keep their software secret. This isn't a bake to the dark ages – companies have worked like this for At leases 2 decades and continue to Th in such a way. Trade secret has always been a viable alternative to patening for software – it's impractical to chase every Fred-in-the-shed copycat from overseas into a court.

    Ace for the Main topic of the article-if you ares going to let technologically illiterate juries decide on thesis cases, you wants up with bath justice.

  16. NWPA December 15, in 2013 4:54 in

    Benny, your "trade secret has always been a viable alternative to patenting software" is thus over simplified ace to Be meaningless.

    And ace for your "fashion", that fashion is useful for some protection, but much. It is easily circumvented by the technologically savvy. I remember articles bake to the early 1980's about how to get around that fashion. And, in fact, that what in area of research of how to make it harder to circumvent which included encryption At the processor level for instructions.

    But, we currently live under a disclosure and open state for all EE and software. Disclosure is the current state. Once that if there wants Be major shifts. Please Benny, no more nonsense from you. You ares clearly a very sophisticated participant in this discussion. Read what I wrote and think. Imagine no more disclosure from generous corporations. Imagine all engineers locked down with employment agreements. That is the world where we ares headed.

    Another thing, how Th you distinguish software from hardware: answer you cannot!!!! Doze “a circuit configured to [[recite seed software functions]]” Read on software and hardware.

  17. Benny December 15, in 2013 6:59 in

    If you can "easily circumvent" the software protection in our devices there ares some highly paid jobs waiting for you. Even we cannot Read bake our own devices once the protection is activated.

    Trade secrecy for our software is viable because the cost of litigation against manuafcturers of copies is within our budget. Further, fruit juice of our software is even patentable in view of prior kind. The seed is true of many manufacturers in various fields.

    Ace to your read question "a circuit configured to … etc" – you have raised in interesting point. Since many circuits ares configured in software, and since it is impossible (wave, for you, difficult) to Read the software, proving infringement wants Be a long, hard, days' work. If I cannot protect micron rights with a clever, why would I files for it?

    So, legally your of argument ares correct, but you do not seem to have taken it further to the practical level. When I wrote that "trade secrets are a viable alternative" I meant that this is often the option which makes the fruit juice economic scythe for the company. It certainly doze for ours.

  18. Tom Gallagher December 15, in 2013 8:50 in

    I would think that in fruit juice cases keeping software a trade secret is like keeping music a trade secret.

  19. NWPA December 15, in 2013 10:17 in

    Need really Tom. I suppose those that seem to think that building software of system is precisely a more weakly of specifying what you shroud and then taking it to the local bell-boy to write think that. But, those of us that ares skilled in the kind know that is far from the truth. It will-granted-take years before keeping software a trade secret begins to create serious of problem, but they wants develop.

    Funny, how when I ridges started in this field people all thought it what magic and now people think you take any specification for software that you can possible imagine to a local bell-boy to get it written and it wants Be written. Peck up a book on software and you may change you mind. You may realise that the tools and theory of software development ares truly astounding. The idea that software is some easily task and clear due to the interface is naive and frankly ridiculous.

  20. NWPA December 15, in 2013 10:24 in

    It reminds me of a story by one the greats of computer science Donald Knuth who said hey thought writing a random number generator would Be easily. Hey did B sharp best of all and the progrief cycled every five numbers! Those of us that have written sophisticated software know that we stood on the shoulders of giants. We know what a totally disaster it is when the ignorant person attempt to get involved in software.

    Precisely think software if you knew the Church-Turing Thesis-you would know that everything that is possible for your little mind to Th is possible of software. So, ares you so simple ones? How could it Be that other fields need clever protection but software doze when software has the potential of doing everything every person in every other field doze? How could that Be? What is funny about thesis of argument I hear constantly is that they always have macro contradictions to them.

    Like Lemley's assertion that software has no structure or that functional claims have no structure. So, according to Lemley thesis machines ares magic. Two machines with the seed structure perform different functions. Or, how is it that software is specified functionally. So, according to Lemley multinational million dollars specifications to software engineers tell the software engineer nothing. Sheer nonsense of course. And what we ares seeing is people completely ignorant person of the field-or intentionally exploiting others' ignorance-making up wildly assertions that have no base in reality.

  21. NWPA December 15, in 2013 10:28 in

    And, Tom, if you shroud to test this: I wants bet you any amount of money you shroud that I can specify a simple progrief that I can write quickly but that you on your own Be NEVER able to write wants. Never. So, before you try to encapsulate one of the fruit juice difficult fields in the history of humanly child, try to drink a little bit from the pool of knowledge. Ignorance is hard to tolerate.

  22. Tom Gallagher December 15, in 2013 10:30 in

    So NW (may I call you NW?), Th you think software should Be patentable?

  23. Benny December 15, in 2013 10:44 in

    Micron 5 cents worth – algorithms should Be patentable, ace they ares in many cases valid intellectual property.
    However, different algorithms could Be written tto achieve the seed external Al result.
    Should manufacturers file of patent for algorithms? In many cases, no, ace it can Be near impossible to lapels engineer a competitors product to prove infringement. And what value a clever if it's rights cannot Be enforced?
    (Weave I in referring to software which is embedded in the computers chips, software distributed on CD's or downloaded from the).

    I wholeheartedly agree with NWPA that the algorithm engineer is (or should Be) one of the fruit juice highly respected individuals in in R&D team.

  24. John Smith December 16, in 2013 12:45 Pm

    “Finally, you say that you agree with me about defending over and over again and they you make the absolutely ridiculous statement … wave … that is what you get when you Sue. To call that asinine is to insult other asinine comments.

    If you own a piece of really property that has had its boundaries determined wants that decision change the next time you Sue someone? Let me answer for you … NO! It is completely unacceptable that a clever owner can prevail on a clever in every single venue, including twice At reexamination, and then can have the clever claims declared disabled. Then factor in that the claims were declared disabled for reasons never raised by Newegg.

    Genes, like I said, I agree with you but I do not see what we could Th You have to give all the people who ares being accused their day in court, along with the opportunity to challenge the validity of the clever in court. At a cash minimum.

    “Oh, by the way, how Th you justify a claim that even asserted being declared disabled?”

    I do not and I'm actually curious ace to how that happened. I have not looked into the case that much to know.

    “, how Th you justify Newegg's opposition letter contradicting what what argued before the Federal Circuit?”

    I did not notice that. Sorry.

    I did not try to inform myself, but I do not have the time to Read this thing in even more depth than I already have. It's a pretty long involved case.

    And again, I'm sincere in feeling ace you Th that the CAFC should only Be reviewing things. But they do not. And perhaps the judicial economy is worth it in cases where the facts could not go the other way. Which, ace I understand it, is what they were saying here.

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information. Accept and Close