Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
Docket 237 no2 exibit1, docket 238 exhibit C. Both dockets filed later than PTAB decision.
Don’t know what to say that I haven’t already posted Hawi.
From the link:
4. The prior art available for inter partes review is limited relative to post-grant review. Inter partes review is akin to inter partes reexamination in that it is limited to prior art grounds based on patents and printed publications, whereas post-grant review can be based on any grounds that are available for an invalidity defense. Significantly, this constraint limits the estoppel effects of inter partes review relative to post-grant review. Post-grant review may preclude a third party from raising virtually any invalidity defense in litigation. The scope of legal estoppel for inter partes review is commensurate with current inter partes reexamination estoppel. Thus, even if it has availed itself of inter partes review, a third party should retain their ability to raise invalidity defenses in other fora based on all grounds other than patents and printed publications that were or reasonably could have been raised during the inter partes review.
And the Samsung arguments regarding sufficiency are clear in the sockets for the court case.
And this isn’t incompatible with BTs statement. Although I find BTs statement a little unhelpful and (purposefully??) misleading. PTAB did indeed find all claims presented to be valid, but if you read the detail of what they were testing these claims against at the PTAB, you see that this isn’t the whole story to judging a patent valid.
Sorry Hawi, just posting what I know.
Amerloque’s post from the 27th August contained this
https://fishpostgrant.com/inter-partes-review/
Which suggests that only novelty and inventiveness have been addressed, and sufficiency is still to come. Plus the dockets from Nano regarding their limine proposals for jurors findings indicate validity is still to be decided.
Basscadet (changed the title to keep this discussion separate to the damages discussion). PTAB haven’t found the patents valid. They have found that they are novel and inventive. A big hurdle remains in proving validity which is to prove sufficiency. And the jurors will be asked to adjudicate in the validity in the trial in 3 weeks.
Sammy, the emails do nothing to help the validity case which must be won as well as the infringement. As for the injunction, the case needs to be won before an injunction is granted I believe, my question is does the injunction happen after the infringement case is won, or does it have to wait for the validity to be won also? Thanks
A positive aspect of the German system (over the US) is that validity is tried independently of infringement by judges competent to make such judgement, rather than a jury. I am concerned about the US system, where a jury is confronted with the complexities of deciding whatever a patent is valid (until this week I had thought validity had been dealt with). How can a jury possibly do that? I’ve tried several times to wade through the 102 page Samsung expert’s testimony explaining why the Nano patent is in sufficiently described for example, and I’m struggling! It is very well written and any layman/juror could easily be swayed by the arguments. It’s worth a read if anyone has the time. It has me second guessing for sure.
However, I’m also sure there will be an equivalent and equally well written rebuttal to that argument by Nano. Surely it is insane to expect an untrained juror in a couple of days to get their head round this stuff, and all the other arguments, and be able to adjudicate. It’s nuts!
So in Germany I have more trust. I have fought a half dozen cases in Germany and they are well considered by the judges -they have spent a lot of time in preparation for the hearing coming to a preliminary decision ahead of the hearing, and it is just on the day to start from that point and argue any aspects that you feel have been missed. Sure they also appear to make some bonkers decisions (IMO) but at least you feel like someone much cleverer than yourself is in the chair!
A downside though, is that the quick (12m) trial for infringement in Germany will be delayed by a year or so in waiting for the validity case to be heard. According to this website anyway. I’m not sure at which point the injunction could be triggered- after the first or second case?..
Thoughts anyone?
https://www.mewburn.com/news-insights/patent-litigation-in-germany-an-overview
I notice from dkt 238 that they are bringing 8 claims from 3 patents rather than the 5 I thought they were limited to. I was really just trawling back to see if there was any response to the long argument from Samsung’s expert that Nanos patents lack sufficiency. Couldn’t find anything in the redacted files. Has anyone else managed to find any defence from Nano on that point yet?
Thanks
Bye.
Penalties.. ! Lol.
If it goes to penalties I’m switching sides
Bye.
Could also be a subliminal to the jury, naughty as that may be
Btw- Europe is a little different re: my last post. In the EU (usually) you would get an EU granted patent and then file in each country and maintain (pay) separately. Therefore if you were to win validity in Germany I’m pretty sure (can check) that your patent will hold up in every EU country as it’s the same patent.
It’s a sister patent because it is a different patent to the US one currently being contested in the Us. Each jurisdiction has differently drafted patents, but when they derive from the same parent they are deemed to be a ‘patent family’ and hence each country will have a sister patent to the one in another country. Why not brother, no idea. But I’ve raised the point before - unfortunately it means we need to do all this again with this ‘new’ EU patent, albeit from the same parent, and largely similar to the original.
Whilst being 50:50 before about the chances of a settlement pre-trial, this latest RNS has moved the needle for me towards settlement. I am interested in your opinion now NGR.
You’re still a 100% certain of no chance of a settlement then?
Gonna unfilter again - can’t wait to hear this explanation!
Roll on injunction
Boom! Get in
Filtered