|
|
|
|
||
Re: HJS's Briefing Schedule/EricVHCCartman Message #100075 - Not so fast Gare.... Major differences between the cases? Just a few. 1) In Ultratec there was a final written decision by the PTAB in place invalidating all but one of the claims in suit. The PTAB decision came after the trial verdict. No such result here as no patent in suit has had a final written decision from the PTAB, nor are any expected before a timely ruling. 2) In our case only two of the four patents in suit are even EXPECTING a PTAB decision. HJS would still need to rule on the rest of the case. 3) In Ultratec, after the PTAB decision was published THE JUDGE asked the parties to file briefings on how the decision effected the case. HJS asked for nothing and got something anyway. 4) The Ultratec case did not have a CAFC opinion finding the patents not invalid. 5) This case has gone on twice as long as the Ultratec case. 6) The defendant in the Ultratec case seemingly has no history of shenanigans at the PTAB in regards to the plaintiff's patents. 7) (And possibly the biggest difference) Our case was heard in the Eastern District of Texas where there is a long history of judges totally ignoring the whims of the PTO until such time as they have been reviewed and opined upon by an Article III court. Yes, it is entirely possible that HJS passes the buck, but the probability is very small, IMHO. |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
107519 | Re: HJS's Briefing Schedule/AAPL requests a stay.... | vhc_watchdog | 3 | 7/27/2016 1:47:36 PM |
107529 | Re: HJS's Briefing Schedule/EricVHCCartman Message #100075 - Not so fast Gare.... | jstevenbaker | 52 | 7/27/2016 8:45:07 PM |