Qs for you Nic re:
He also made some crazy comment to the effect that he never consults with inventors before filing new continuation cases? He said this to make it seem SOP that he did not talk to F&H. Let me assure this audience: this is either an outright fabrication, or Steinberg enjoys flirting with malpractice.
these were continuation filings?
he was in-house at the time, no?
so the issues of inventorship, and his authority, and of "cost to prosecute the new filing" are diminished/eliminated - no?
smd
----------------------
----------------------
But all of this supposes that the jury understood any of this. From a visceral perspective Steinberg came across very well, so a lot of this detail may escape the jury or.... they may simply not care. I see this case much more critically than they do, so don't take my reactions as representative of theirs.
He also made some crazy comment to the effect that he never consults with inventors before filing new continuation cases? He said this to make it seem SOP that he did not talk to F&H. Let me assure this audience: this is either an outright fabrication, or Steinberg enjoys flirting with malpractice. If an attorney files a case, for example, based solely on his impression of what he/she thinks is patentable, and without consulting the inventors, I daresay that person will be in for a rude awakening. The PTO requires, for example, that the attorney confirm the inventorship of the claims as part of the filing; i.e., if there are two inventors named, please make sure that BOTH contributed to the application. Well, if you didn't bother asking either inventor, that seems like a rather signicant omission. That is definitely NOT SOP in the patent prosecution business, I was surprised he would say that. Again, though, I doubt this would even cause a blip on the juror's radar...
