🚀 go-pugleaf

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>Rick Miller makes a couple of legal arguments, that I, as a fellow
>non-attorney, think incorrect.

>1. He asserts that until a patent is tested in court its status
>is indeterminate. I think this is a misstatement of law. I believe
>the law is that until a patent is overthrown in court it is valid.
>That's a very different matter, and leads to such things as
>retrospective damages from the time of the verdict.

Patents are presumtively valid. However, this presumption can be, 
and often is overcome. In particular, some of the presumption is
lost if you can show lack of candor with the PTO (failure to disclose
material information to them).

However, note that just because you have successfully defended a
patent, doesn't mean that you are off the hook. A finding of validity
usually has no estoppel value against someone who was not a party to
the previous suit. This means that you have to reprove the validity
each time it is challenged. Lose once though, and the patent is 
invalid thereafter. 

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org