I am new to this thread and I have not had the chance, nor do I have the time to scan through past posts (there is a lot of trading banter and infringer hunting). I am also an investor and have sucessfully invested in other litigation such as the goodwill lawsuits against the goverment. Patent law is new to me and I have read two law reviews and several similar cases to get a feel for the issues since my first post earlier this week.
I do believe there is a chance that the judge could reverse herself or that the appeals court would reverse her interpretation. As an investor, I care about winning the case outright and having a real company with revenues and a market cap above 3 million. My goal is to bet on them winning all the way (at least having the patent narrowed marginaly). Prior art issues I believe, will kill this patent. There are some strong examples of it in the defendants brief. If Freeny really meant for this patent to include or be as broad as E-data is trying to have it construed, then it would have had to be interpreted that way at the time of the prosecution durring the approval process of the patent.
The law says that you must use the interpretation at the time of the patent filing, not at the time of the infringement. If it was meant to be this broad, it would have not been approved, because much prior art existed at the time. E-data would have to show how the patent differed from these examples at the time. I don't think they can because the language is so broad and the embodiment left so wide open as to encapsulate much prior art in its currently litigated interpretation. Those skilled in the art at the time of the filing had no reason to believe that this patent covered access, purchase and printing documents in the home or business from Lexis-Nexis.
The courts have ruled consistantly that if those skilled in the art or the public or patent office would have examined this patent and not determined from the claims, language, embodiment and prosecution history that this covered electronic commerce via a computer, modem, printer and storage devices, then the courts will most certainly not uphold it. The patent is ambiguos in many areas and surley did not contemplate the internet, downloading of documents, software or video to a computer storage device in the home. The point is that prior art is a killer here if you are an investor. As a trader, there are opportunities I agree. I have no interest in that. I could not accumulate a position large enough to be worth the effort.
Please post more on the prior art issue or the chances of E-data prevailing in this litigation. Also what the current claim interpretation by the judge would cover (companies or processes). Thanks. |
