Love me some abharploonta. Posted on YMB. Thanks for taking time to inform us all. Slacker
by: abharploonta
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 07/05/06 07:57 pm
Msg: 114117 of 114136
I suppose the pumpers and the bashers are going to try and spin any news to suit their own motives, but the confusion abounding on this MB today is astounding.
First, partial summary judgement means only a partial resolution of the case. Nobody wins. Nobody loses. At least not on June 30, 2006. The case is not yet decided. Only parts of it, and only those parts which one side or the other asked the Judge to consider, and only if the Judge found no evidentiary conflict which would require jurors to resolve that particular issue of fact.
Also, for the Plaintiff to win a patent case, Plaintiff must first prove infringement of a patent granted by the U.S. Patent Office. Next, the Plaintiff must also prove that the patent they claim was infringed is, in fact, a valid patent. The issuance of a patent creates a presumption of validity. The Defendant then has the burden of overcoming that presumption.
So, TRCA did get some good news from the Court. But it did not get any sort of decision which will entitle it to damages of any sort from INSM. It is only part of the way there, hence the term "Partial Summary Judment". I agree it is unsettling to see TRCA land even one punch, but the fight is far from over.
Some folks seem to clearly understand these points, and have moved on to discussing INSM's chances of prevailing at trial on invalidity issues. Others seem to be clogging up the MB with useless posts based upon a false assumption or conclusion that infringement is the be all and end all in patent litigation.
Certainly, TRCA's PR preyed upon a layperson's misconception and lack of understanding of the legal terminology. I can't say the TRCA PR contained any lies, though. The Court ruled that that INSM had infringed on three claims within one patent. TRCA still has to survive validity challenges at trial in order to receive damages.
Bottom line: the case is still going to trial in November, to be followed by appeals, which have at least a 50-50 chance of succeeding.
I haven't analyzed the invalidity defense retained by INSM. I probably, like most of you, lack the scientific background, highly specialized legal training, and weeks of time to do so (assuming the key evidence is available on PACER, when I know tons of it has been redacted and/or sealed from public view). But yakking about this stuff in general is good entertainment, so have at it.
It sort of makes sense to me that if a claim is broadly drawn, it is easier to establish that the Defendant's product infringes on the claim in some fashion. But this would appear to be a double-edged sword for the Plaintiff, since a broadly drawn claim would logically be easier to invalidate. The larger the claim, the bigger the target. The larger the perimeter, the tougher to defend.
Bottom, bottom line: Nothing really has changed on the legal front since last week. For all we know, INSM might be delighted with a broad claim construction and well prepared to rip the validity of the claim apart at trial. As a long, I sure hope so.
