I appreciate she had no input into USPTO upholding of patents and wasn't involved at all but am suspicious enough to believe that she was subsequently placed there for a reason ...Obama has publically denounced patent trolls and I believe Google made a contribution to his election campaign .....sorry but I am not naïve enough to believe that the screws could not be bought to bear on Government in an attempt to undermine patents which are perceived as a threat to big business ......IF there is any Justice the en banc will be allowed and a new panel of Judges will debate whether those two Judges had the authority to overturn previous decisions made by a Judge and Jury who worked for months on the case and with the full support of the USPTO whereas the two Judges who voted to overturn the previous rulings had less patent knowledge than Chen yet quickly ruled in favour of obviousness even while Google in all it's deliberations had never broached that particular subject
Federal Circuit Judge Raymond Chen, who dissented from the majority`s opinion, highlighted the opinion`s failure "to accord sufficient deference to the jury`s findings of fact," and explained that the majority`s conclusion "squarely conflicts with the jury`s express finding" that the prior art lacked specific elements claimed by the patents in suit. Judge Chen criticized the majority`s application of its own "common sense," without deferring to the jury or trial judge: "Where a jury`s findings concerning the prior art are supported by substantial evidence, and where a trial court makes its obviousness determination based on those findings, I would exercise caution in wielding our own common sense as part of our review of the judgment." Finally, Judge Chen observed that the majority had disregarded this Court`s requirement that "obviousness findings grounded in `common sense` must contain explicit and clear reasoning providing some rational underpinning why common sense compels a finding of obviousness."
1. You are a #$%$ #$%$....let's get that point out of they way first
2. Clearly you have no understanding of the law
3. Introducing an argument for a defendant that such defendant did not introduce at the district level on 'their behalf' then arguing that defense for them is actually not the role of the appelate court, and arguably 'illegal' fool...since its not to be done according to LAW
4. if you are so blind that you cant see that this 2 judges are doing the bidding of a company which everyone knows is part of the DoD you are stupider than your posts suggest.
5. These 2 judges used their power in an attempt to subvert the law on behalf of google it is clear and hoped that given the typical percentage of en banc review they could sneak it under the wire. You need to understand the nuances in that opinion to really understand it, which clearly you do not.
6. Unfortunately for those two, clearly they aren't the best money can buy and left too many holes in their opinions and didn't realize SCOTUS would have something to say about Teva Sandoz that will apply...
That's a very good point why not license the technology to someone else to use it's not like GOOGLE can say anything about something they themselves don't have the rights to.
tesio - Michele was deputy to top , or second in command as I understood it, so she sure didn't affect it then and If anything - probably would not want to make like it, so seems we have no problem there, it is the nitwit
judge that refuses to even work apparently and the minority judge blasted them...why have a patent office if
some judge is allowed to overturn their work!! IF, IF this gets heard by all it would seem to be a certain VRNG win and doubt supreme court would hear it. Fat lady sings then.
vringo's version is what google currently uses. if things don't work out vringo should partner with Yippy search engine and destroy google.
yippy is a search engine that is 10% owned by IBM
this was from YIPPY's CEO last week;
We don't want to tip our hand too much. But I can tell you this, we are talking to Google Search Appliance Partners (VARS) and offering them much more in the way of commissions than Google. They can call their existing customer base and say... How would you like to save 50% (that's huge money) on your Google bill and they make 100% more than Google pays them in commission for that customer.
Price - Features - Speed - we kill the Google appliance.
If there is no difference can vrng sell their version?
What does goog have if not a search engine?
Isnt that how they make $$
Why doesnt vrng sell their patent if is so good.?
Goog cant stop them
Alibaba Yahoo Amzn
The judge had an opinion........... that does not make him corrupt.
But then anyone who challenges your narrow views is corrupt.
I think the USPTO will become very important.
What does the USPTO have to do with anything now? VRNG patents withstood numerous tests, it was a corrupt judge that was the issue sir...i wish people here would think a bit more
....question is ....will it.... or will the appointment of an ex Google employee to the Patent Office and changes to the law limit the power of a patent should it impinge on a company who contributed big time to an election campaign .....we are about to find out if power corrupts and absolute power corrupt absolutely.....or if the Justice system upholds the integrity of the Patent Office and members of its own fraternity
I am not worried about you, you are nobody, these message boards are nothing more than #$%$ parlors, rub some cream on your sore vag and you can be ready for the street corner tonight.
Monetization strategy & pipeline of opportunities for patent acquisitions
Current patent portfolio of 760 patent assets from global Fortune 500 companies
Sentiment: Strong Buy