It's not a matter of semantics, it's a fundamental
Post# of 22465
(Total Views: 1021)
Posted On: 05/28/2017 3:09:42 PM
It's not a matter of semantics, it's a fundamental concept. The sentence says two important, and very different things. Yes, it says [1] that you can sue others that make your IP, however it also says [2] you can't use your patent as a basis of freedom to operate.
"[2] What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but [1] the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention."
When you wrote the quote below, were you not suggesting that the timing of the patent was at least partially to blame for missing goals and the extended time to market? You've made at least two other comments that suggested that they needed the patent in order to start manufacturing. That's not semantics; it's just wrong.
I stand to be corrected, but I don't think either lawsuit was primarily about production method. If I remember right, Nanosys v. Nanoco was over a specific QD composition and Nanosys v. QDV was primarily over the QD rail thing and not really about QDs at all. My recollection is that Nanosys may have claimed some process or composition infringement too but those claims were dismissed. Also, wasn't the key Nanosys patent asserted against Nanosys later ruled invalid by the PTAB?
Process is a tougher road than composition when it comes to infringement. Unless you have a spy, it's hard to know the exact details of the process being used. Courts don't typically like to let companies go on fishing trips. If you don't have a solid reason to believe infringement, there is a good chance you won't get to discovery. If it wasn't this way, companies would sue simply to try to get access to trade secrets.
The last point that I think you have to consider is who says QTMM is actually doing exactly what it says in the patent and only what it says in the patent? If so what have they been working on for the past however many years since they bought the application from Bayer? Even if a patent was evidence of freedom to operate, the second you do something not in the patent that's out the window.
"[2] What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but [1] the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention."
When you wrote the quote below, were you not suggesting that the timing of the patent was at least partially to blame for missing goals and the extended time to market? You've made at least two other comments that suggested that they needed the patent in order to start manufacturing. That's not semantics; it's just wrong.
Quote:
As for missing goals, the whole market has shifted over the past 18 months. QDVision met the market in 2015 only to go bankrupt in 2016. How can a company meet its business objectives if the target keeps moving? The market wanted high performance cadmium quantum dots in 2014-2015. It then shifted, because of Samsung's lead, to cadmium free. QMC got IP for continuous flow cadmium free in late 2014, but that IP had to be developed into a useable product and the patent needed to be granted to have freedom to operate.
Quote:
Yes, Nanosys sued Nanoco and QD Vision. Why? Because they all use the same product in method. Look up the lawsuits. QMC has a completely different production method.
I stand to be corrected, but I don't think either lawsuit was primarily about production method. If I remember right, Nanosys v. Nanoco was over a specific QD composition and Nanosys v. QDV was primarily over the QD rail thing and not really about QDs at all. My recollection is that Nanosys may have claimed some process or composition infringement too but those claims were dismissed. Also, wasn't the key Nanosys patent asserted against Nanosys later ruled invalid by the PTAB?
Process is a tougher road than composition when it comes to infringement. Unless you have a spy, it's hard to know the exact details of the process being used. Courts don't typically like to let companies go on fishing trips. If you don't have a solid reason to believe infringement, there is a good chance you won't get to discovery. If it wasn't this way, companies would sue simply to try to get access to trade secrets.
The last point that I think you have to consider is who says QTMM is actually doing exactly what it says in the patent and only what it says in the patent? If so what have they been working on for the past however many years since they bought the application from Bayer? Even if a patent was evidence of freedom to operate, the second you do something not in the patent that's out the window.
(0)
(0)