Here are some answers. Boy you turn away and all hell breaks loose! From what I know (I am not a patent atty) if that system was out there and not patented, it becomes prior art and whatever is obvious from that prior art both become inventions that one will not be guilty of infringing on.
Patents normally contain many claims. Broad claims and narrow claims. Broad claims can be thrown out by courts but narrower claims or more sophisticated claims vs the prior art get upheld.
In this NY case, defendants will be deemed to have infringed if what they did infringes on ANY of the upheld claims. The claims denied and the claims upheld become precedent for enforcing the patent against others. Each claim has its own presumption of validity. The distinctions and similarities of the patent and all its many claims (and the processes it describes to accomplish its claims) need to be compared to the Telephone Software Connection's (TSC) system and others, if any, that may have preceeded the patent.
I, obviously do not have all the answers. Those who have licensed that patent had done a prior art search and if they felt that they would not be "legally infringing" because there was such prior art for their use of the processes described in the patent would not have licensed it.
So, if someone wanted to copy TSC, or what was obvious,at that time, from what THEY were doing, they would be OK. However, when someone applies for a patent, they disclosed exactly how their invention works. In exchange for this disclosure, the law protects your right to exploit this new invention (claim held valid) for 17 years.
Conclusion, we have lost TSC type claims (which way be an ancient, unsophisticated process). This prior art must be compared in detail against GIFT's patent and it many SPECIFIC claims.
Mel |
