Posted by absintheminded90210 in response to carus
Post# of 82672
(Total Views: 420)
Posted On: 06/12/2017 7:42:24 AM
Posted by absintheminded90210 in response to carusso's question about the IPR. StrikeForce's 90 day response window is up June 14th:
If it gets instituted it'll basically be a review of the validity of SFOR's patent listed in the petitions. Completed within 12 months from institution.
The petitioner (duo & the rest) say it is an obvious invention.(Google "obviousness patentability" if you're interested)
This is what SFOR says about that in the response to motion for stay. -
"Defendants’ chances of success are even lower because their IPR petitions are weak Here, the chances of at least one claim surviving the defendants’ IPR petitions is much higher than the above-described general PTAB statistics due to the fact that defendants’ petitions are unusually weak. For example, defendants do not assert any anticipation grounds. This means that despite Duo’s counsel knowing about the ’698 patent since it was the subject of the Delaware case in 201310—i.e., for four years—they never identified a single prior art reference that describes the same thing as the ’698 patent. This comes as no surprise since the PTO already reexamined and confirmed the validity of the parent of the ’698 patent, the ’599 patent. Having no anticipating reference, defendants are forced to resort to obviousness invalidity grounds. According to defendants, it would have been “obvious” for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine three, and sometimes four, different prior art references to somehow arrive at the claimed invention.11 Another glaring weakness with defendants’ IPR petition is that their own commercial success demonstrates why the ’698 patent is not obvious. It is one of the tenets of patent law that the commercial success of the invention—either the patentee’s commercial success or that of an infringer—is strong evidence that the invention was not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The commercial response to an invention is significant to determinations of obviousness.”). Here, defendants’ infringing products, and especially Duo’s, have enjoyed spectacular commercial success. This further weakens their chances of success in the IPR petitions
If it gets instituted it'll basically be a review of the validity of SFOR's patent listed in the petitions. Completed within 12 months from institution.
The petitioner (duo & the rest) say it is an obvious invention.(Google "obviousness patentability" if you're interested)
This is what SFOR says about that in the response to motion for stay. -
"Defendants’ chances of success are even lower because their IPR petitions are weak Here, the chances of at least one claim surviving the defendants’ IPR petitions is much higher than the above-described general PTAB statistics due to the fact that defendants’ petitions are unusually weak. For example, defendants do not assert any anticipation grounds. This means that despite Duo’s counsel knowing about the ’698 patent since it was the subject of the Delaware case in 201310—i.e., for four years—they never identified a single prior art reference that describes the same thing as the ’698 patent. This comes as no surprise since the PTO already reexamined and confirmed the validity of the parent of the ’698 patent, the ’599 patent. Having no anticipating reference, defendants are forced to resort to obviousness invalidity grounds. According to defendants, it would have been “obvious” for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine three, and sometimes four, different prior art references to somehow arrive at the claimed invention.11 Another glaring weakness with defendants’ IPR petition is that their own commercial success demonstrates why the ’698 patent is not obvious. It is one of the tenets of patent law that the commercial success of the invention—either the patentee’s commercial success or that of an infringer—is strong evidence that the invention was not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The commercial response to an invention is significant to determinations of obviousness.”). Here, defendants’ infringing products, and especially Duo’s, have enjoyed spectacular commercial success. This further weakens their chances of success in the IPR petitions
(0)
(0)Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links
WORDS TO LIVE BY:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Get .... PrivacyLok https://cyberidguard.com/
Try SafeVchat: https://cyberidguard.com/
My comments are only my opinion and are not to be used for investment advice.
Please conduct your own due diligence before choosing to buy or sell any stock.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Get .... PrivacyLok https://cyberidguard.com/
Try SafeVchat: https://cyberidguard.com/
My comments are only my opinion and are not to be used for investment advice.
Please conduct your own due diligence before choosing to buy or sell any stock.
Scroll down for more posts ▼