(Total Views: 279)
Posted On: 12/08/2017 1:35:33 PM
Post# of 82690
Re: Urbansndaup #11308
I like this from one of your links:
"When the US Patent and Trademark Office takes a second look at a patent through the IPR process, it uses a standard called the "broadest reasonable interpretation" (or BRI) to decide what the claims mean. Under the "broadest reasonable" standard, a whole lot of prior art can be brought in to potentially beat the patent. Cuozzo's lawyers argued that the Patent Office shouldn't be allowed to use that standard and instead should use a narrower one used in district courts."
My interpretation of this other case is that SFOR went through the toughest test and passed, the PTAB decission on dismissing the IPR.
IMO
"When the US Patent and Trademark Office takes a second look at a patent through the IPR process, it uses a standard called the "broadest reasonable interpretation" (or BRI) to decide what the claims mean. Under the "broadest reasonable" standard, a whole lot of prior art can be brought in to potentially beat the patent. Cuozzo's lawyers argued that the Patent Office shouldn't be allowed to use that standard and instead should use a narrower one used in district courts."
My interpretation of this other case is that SFOR went through the toughest test and passed, the PTAB decission on dismissing the IPR.
IMO
(7)
(0)
