SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range
QCOM 177.24-0.8%Oct 30 3:59 PM EDT
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: waitwatchwander who wrote (4935)3/28/2009 4:10:34 AM
From: JGoren  Read Replies (2) of 9129
 
You say qcom couldn't be blatantly infringing if it cited the ITT patent; that is my point. If it's cited, then the examiner should determine if the patent is valid, that is, not infringing on a prior patent. Usually, the lawsuit is over an uncited patent, the argument being that the patent only was granted because the applicant failed to cite prior art and the applicant therefore committed fraud on the PTO. I have always interpreted that to mean that if the invention embodies prior, patented art, it is not new would usually infringe upon a prior, existing patent. So, it seems to me that citing the ITT patent says: We know about this; our invention is not something that somebody in the industry would just logically conclude is true from prior art, and our invention is sufficiently different to be patentable (and therefore not infringe).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News