The ? is. Does a judge or jury know more than the US Patent Office what is NEW ART. Patents are based on NEW ART. Very often but not always Patents are based on MODIFIED old ART that teach of a NEW Method. Thanks, AL
Patent valid or invalid... is a separate issue than patent infringement. Jury found RJR did NOT infringe on the patent.
CIGX lawyer in the appeal hearing claims that because of the "final slide" in closing argument, the jury was prejudiced to think that the patent was invalid, and because they thought that the patent was invalid, that's why there was nothing to infringe on.
The problem I have with this is that this requires 2 jumps in logic - one, you have to assume that the "final slide" prejudiced the jury so much that they ruled the patent as invalid. Two, the second jump, you have to assume that because they thought the patent was invalid, that's why they decided RJR did not infringe.
The question of infringement actually was very different from whether patent was valid.
In short, could one "final slide" in closing argument by defense really taint the entire jury as to demand another trial to correct the problem? Frankly, I think it's a very long shot.
Not a single lawyer here? Come on, this is going to be the greatest catalyst for CIGX in the near future and not a single lawyer can comment on their expert knowledge on how appeal process works and what appeal judge is looking for?
He said appeal judge only overturns lower court decision if: 1) new material evidence (with exceptions see below); 2) error in jury instruction; 3) lower court violating existing laws
He said our court system has a lot of faith in the jury and does not overturn easily - after all, if every decision can be overturned due to minor irregularity, then, appeal process will last decades as both sides keep appealing for a new trial whenever the trial outcome is unfavorable.
So, it's pretty much the case that both sides must give their best shot. As for the new evidence exception, if one side does not present certain material evidence, then, that side cannot go to appeal court and claim that there is new material evidence so there needs to be a new trial - again, if you allow this, trial will go on forever.