What would be the legal basis of the appeal? Be careful how you answer here, the patient office and their future actions will not form the legal basis of an appeal.
They are?
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Nope, doesn't work that way, you get one shot, RIM had it.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Umm technically aren't you supposed to have a working proto-type?
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Didn't you just make my point? They did what they needed to raise the funds...
True. Thanks for the correction.
I don't believe that has ever been required, but certainly not now. You must have a prototype _or_ an adequate description of the process to enable someone reading the patent to duplicate it. Of course, sometimes patents get granted when the process is impossible.
Rico, turn off the spell checker. That's the third time I've seen "patients" for "patents"! If RIM was in the medical devices business, you'd really be scaring me :-)
SMS (Steven Scharf, previously self-proclaimed wireless expert and now self-proclaimed patent law expert) doesn't seem to know the difference between criminal law and civil patent law, and thus has a totally misinformed idea that a civil patent law case can somehow be reopened/re-litigated on the basis of "new evidence". It can't. In civil patent law there's only "one bite at the apple". RIM had its one bite (day in court), and lost, including appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. Thus, game over. All that's left is for either (1) settlement or (2) judge's final ruling. In the latter case RIM could appeal the correctness of any award, but only that, and only on the basis of the existing record -- it can't re-litigate the case and the findings of fact by the jury.
You've apparently been reading too many death row criminal law pieces in USA Today -- there's no such thing as "new evidence" in a civil patent case.
Doubtful, since that would be a pointless exercise. Not only has the Supreme Court already denied cert, but RIM had its day in court, and lost. There is no second chance.
Nope. That's not how civil patent law works. Courts can't take notice of anything not in the record.
RIM has lost. NTP has won. Game over. All that's left is either (1) settlement or (2) final judgement by the Court. In the latter case RIM could appeal the correctness of any award, but only that, and only on the basis of the existing record -- it can't introduce "new evidence" or re-litigate the case and the findings of fact by the jury.
Actually she has.
Please, there are no patients involved in this whole dispute. Doctors maybe, and lawyers certainly.
You need to understand what has happened in the past week. The current injunction refers to all nine patents. Two claims on the patents have had a final rejection. This opens up a whole realm of possibilities, because it makes the current injunction invalid. Spencer could invalidate the current injunction and impose a new injunction based only on the patent claims that haven't been rejected, but this would be grounds for RIM to start the appeal cycle all over again. If the judge lifts his stay, RIM can also start the appeals cycle all over again.
It's been a bad week for NTP and a good one for RIM. Look for NTP to settle for much less that what they were originally demanding. I'd predict $100 million and no royalties. The judge has it in for RIM, but his options are limited.
At least you got that right!
You need to understand civil patent law.
Nope:
Nope. The Court cannot consider anything new, only what is in the record.
RIM could only appeal the correctness of any award, but only that, and only on the basis of the existing record -- it can't introduce "new evidence" or re-litigate the case and the findings of fact by the jury.
Just the opposite. See below.
How much are you willing to bet?
Nope again.
"Bye-Bye BlackBerry?"
Millions of BlackBerry fans are focusing their attention on a Virginia courtroom, where a U.S. District Court judge promises to announce--one day--whether the popular e-mail service can keep running.
But long-term, Research in Motion (nasdaq: RIMM - news - people ) has a bigger problem than its dispute with Virginia-based NTP, which alleges that RIM's BlackBerry wireless e-mail service infringes upon its patents. Regardless of how the company's legal troubles pan out--today a growing number of analysts were predicting a settlement that would keep RIM running--it will face increasing competition from players who want some of the U.S. wireless e-mail market it dominates. And RIM's patent battle has given them a chance to make their case to nervous information-technology managers.
"The damage to the BlackBerry brand has been done," says Ferris Research analyst David Via. "A lot of people are evaluating alternatives."
[MORE]
Nope. Patents are for inventions, not ideas. It is quite common to patent an implimentation of some idea, long before that implimentation is actually functioning and working. The various parts and pieces of the atomic bomb were patented (and kept secret) long before the bomb was exploded. The USPTO would have a big problem if they expected the atomic bomb to be demonstarted (in their offices) before granting a patent.
However, I goofed on the date. In 1880, the patent office no longer required inventors to deliver a working prototype (because they ran out of space to store them).
The expert was David Keeney, founder and owner of TechNow, the original inventor of the wireless email messaging. He was an expert in the field of wireless messaging, but somewhat lacking in getting a pair of ancient MSDOS laptops to play. I would have problems with that. 1987 MSDOS was version 3.1 or 3.3.
Note that they had reached a previous settlement but the judge ruled it "invalid" immediately after NTP changed their mind and announced that $450 million wasn't enough to satisfy them. They now want $1 billion.
Then there's the judge who seems to have limited patience:
I don't wanna speculate on the chances of getting an appeal. Once the Washington politicians are involved, the letter of the law becomes rather unimportant.
I don't believe that line. It's just too convenient. My guess is the new owner of NTP thought he could cash in on his patent portfolio now that RIM was successful and making money. No sense in suing an impoverished company. Timing is everything.
I'm suspicious. Large collections of money tend to be rather attractive.
Right. One screwup is equal to how many valid technical claims? As I keep saying, there are no good guys in this mess.
Incidentally, RIM didn't really lie in front of the jury. They swapped out a later version of the prior art TeckNow software for a later version because they couldn't get the ancient laptops to run the old version. Having battled MSDOS in 1987, I can understand the problem. Too bad the judge didn't.
Fun and games. Patent for operating a childs swing sideways: |
The chances of an appeal hinge on what Spencer does next. If not for the PTO final rejection of two of the patent claims, Spencer would have lifted the stay on his existing injunction, and shut down Blackberry Service (at least as it works now). But lifting the stay now gives RIM grounds to appeal, because of the rejections of the two claims.
Spencer is caught between a rock and a hard place. His existing injunction is now invalid. But if he invalidates it, and issues a new one, complete with a stay, on the remaining patents, then RIM can start the appeals process all over again, which this judge doesn't want to happen.
Whatever. I don't have a Blackberry so I don't care one way or another. But people should read up on the law as it applies to cases like this, before making statements that RIM has no way to appeal this thing any further.
You keep saying that, but it isn't really true. Perhaps RIM should have disclosed, in advance, that they had to use a later version of the prior-art software, and why. The fact that they drew a technically incompetent judge doesn't make them bad guys.
The fact remains that the NTP patents are not valid. This is opening up a whole range of possible outcomes and courses of action.
The IP legal community is amazed that NTP doesn't just settle for whatever they can get at this point, because they could very well end up with nothing if they don't settle quickly.
I stand by what I wrote, which is based on experience as an expert witness. No real expert would have had a real problem with MS-DOS or faked evidence because of it. No ethical attorney would knowingly submit faked evidence. No "explanation" is possible. Read up on the rules of evidence.
What actually happened was that Judge Spencer ruled the March settlement term sheet between RIM and NTP was not enforceable. The ruling was filed under seal, and no other details are available.
I disagree.
There is no existing injunction.
Wrong.
Wrong again.
His previous injunction was vacated.
Wrong again.
The only grounds for appeal would be the correctness of relief based on the
*existing* record -- no new evidence can be considered by the Courts.You need to take your own advice, and use a better source than USA Today. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
The judge understands the rules of evidence. Apparently you don't. Evidence was faked, and an expert isn't allowed to fake evidence no matter what the purported reason. There is no excuse.
In fact they can't use a later version, because that's not actual evidence of prior art.
The judge did just fine, better than the nonsense that's being posted here.
The actual fact is that RIM lost a jury verdict that's been upheld on appeal. What's happened since then is irrelevant (and isn't what you claim in any event).
The IP legal community is actually amazed at the incredible legal and business risk RIM has been taking by playing hardball with NTP and with the Court.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.