UPDATE 2-U.S. Supreme Court rulings may make life harder for patent trolls

Comments (1)
patentpoints wrote:

In my view, this opinion doesn’t change much from a litigation perspective. The challenger still must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the “claims, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” This is a difficult burden, especially in this case. Biosig will likely argue on remand that the issue (spaced relationship) was among those considered during examination and reexamination of the ‘753 patent. Plus, Nautilus may not resolve this factual issue on summary judgment, which means that they will have to roll the dice at trial, which plays into the hands of patent owners, NPE’s, PAE’s, and trolls alike.

Jun 02, 2014 10:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.