You completely misunderstand what a patent is and
Post# of 22465
(Total Views: 782)
Posted On: 05/23/2017 3:38:19 PM
You completely misunderstand what a patent is and is not. Maybe you will believe the USPTO:
Patentability and infringement are not as closely connected as you may think. If you have an idea that's useful, novel, and nonobvious, it's possible to get a patent even if you couldn't actually do it or make it without infringing on another patent. So you could have a patent that would probably hold up in court and still not be able to practice it without infringing on another patent.
Second, prior art and patents get missed all the time during the prosecution of patents - by applicants, their lawyers, and the patent examiners, and patents/claims are invalidated every day in Federal Court trials and at the Patent Office in Interparty Patent Reviews (IPR).
Companies absolutely do get sued - and lose - for making things they think they have patented. A patent is not a license to infringe because the Patent Office granted a patent that has infringing elements or because they made a mistake in granting the patent in the first place.
A patent also is not a defense in court because a patent doesn't mean anything until a court rules on what it means and the court can define words and construe meaning however it wants.
Lastly, what do you think the odds are that QMC is doing exactly what it says in that patent?
Quote:
What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.
Patentability and infringement are not as closely connected as you may think. If you have an idea that's useful, novel, and nonobvious, it's possible to get a patent even if you couldn't actually do it or make it without infringing on another patent. So you could have a patent that would probably hold up in court and still not be able to practice it without infringing on another patent.
Second, prior art and patents get missed all the time during the prosecution of patents - by applicants, their lawyers, and the patent examiners, and patents/claims are invalidated every day in Federal Court trials and at the Patent Office in Interparty Patent Reviews (IPR).
Companies absolutely do get sued - and lose - for making things they think they have patented. A patent is not a license to infringe because the Patent Office granted a patent that has infringing elements or because they made a mistake in granting the patent in the first place.
A patent also is not a defense in court because a patent doesn't mean anything until a court rules on what it means and the court can define words and construe meaning however it wants.
Lastly, what do you think the odds are that QMC is doing exactly what it says in that patent?
(1)
(0)