Does the new 399 patent stand on its own or depend on the validity of the prior patents?
pfriend's question is one of two major important questions about the future of VHC. What precludes Apple
from instituting IPRs against the 399 patent and using similar tactics to eviscerate it as well? Is the only hope
now that SCOTUS (or CAFC) will undo the damage caused by "broadest reasonable interpretation" processes?
I did read the entire final report, and I never thought I'd see Kiuchi being cited, time and again, as prior art for VHC
patents.For me, the Apple trial can't arrive soon enough --although I'm wondering if the defendant will find some legal loophole to undo the jury's finding of Apple's infringement. So my second major question is: If those patents on which Apple was found to have infringed are now being undone by the PTAB, can the infringement ruling be overturned?