E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Tobinick v. Olmarker (Fed. Cir. 2014) | Main | USPTO Holds Forum on Subject Matter Eligibility -- Part IV »

May 21, 2014

Comments

"Does Personal Audio represent an inventor trying to protect his patented ideas, or is he a troll because he does not practice the invention himself?" That's a strange dichotomy to present, implying as it does that an inventor who maintains ownership of his patent can't be a troll. IIRC, the point was that this patent should never have been issued because if it's as broad as its owner/inventor says it is, then it claims the prior art, and therefore the assertion of this patent, whether by the inventor by a a third-party assignee, is abusive.

How do you tailor legislation to deal with such suits, without precluding other types of suits that you don't want to discourage? I dunno.

Andrew,

Good riddance, hope (probably a faint one) that this legislation dies completely or at least is greatly modified to address what should be correctly called “litigation abuse,” not “patent abuse” (which it is not). Leahy’s snide remark for why S. 1720 failed is disingenuous in the extreme; S. 1720 (and even more so, HR 3309) are misguided and very poorly thought-through. Leahy and his henchmen should stop “throwing rocks” at the wrong “houses.”

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31