“In the reexamination of U.S. Patent 6192476 the USPTO has issued an office action in which it rejects 17 of the patent's 21 claims. The specifics of the office action are set forth below in text form along with an updated reexamination history. While Oracle has asserted seven different patents in its claims against Google, if this reexamination is exemplary of what Oracle can expect in each of the other reexaminations, Oracle will have a hard time finding claims that it can successfully assert against Google, and there lies Oracles conundrum. Oracle either has to agree with the court's directive to limit the number of claims it will assert at trial, or it is likely the court will simply stay the trial until the reexaminations are complete.”
Early this month I made reference to the amount of damages that Oracle would be claiming in the action against Google (here). It seems to me that this reexamintaion could have an impact in the amount the Court will consider to grant (if any). What should Oracle do now?. Should Oracle modify their damages claim in order to show the impact and provide new figures?
Other questions may arise. 17 from 21 means 80% of the registered claims!. How many “void patent claims” are registered at the USPTO? How many court claims are in course based in “void patent claims”? How many injunctions have been granted based in “void patent claims”? How much money have plaintiffs obtained from “void patent claims” infringement? How much are defendants spending in “void court actions”?
I don’t know why but Nortel’s 6,000 patent portfolio immediately came to my mind. Google bided $ 900 million for that Portfolio. What if 80% of claims in these patents are also void?
Other questions regarding that bid may arise, reading:
Comments fro the AmeriKat on Google’s bid (here)
Reference in Reuters to Microsoft objection to Google’s bid
Yesterday's news regarding the US antitrust regulators giving Apple the green light to make a bid on Nortel’s portfolio (cnet)
1 comment:
"What if 80% of claims in these patents are also void?"
I wonder if it occurs to the author that software patents if not the USPTO is the problem here?
It's an industry for lawyers either companies can't risk the cost of not buying them because they can't rik the cost of defending infringement actions or companies buy them because their competitors will prefer to settle rather than defend
In both cases lawyers have a vested interest in promting software patents despite musing on their blogs that perhaps 80% of them are worth less the the paper they're printed on let alone the application fees.
Of course it's not only patents, some companies claim to own "App Store"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/22/apple_sues_amazon_over_app_store_name/
Post a Comment