Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[Gold49er]

Now that would be an interesting document to read.

Thank You for another explanation.

My point is they held that hearing when MS/PF was withholding the most relevant tech documents from discovery. They only settled after they got caught doing that.

I can fully believe that is What Happened knowing MoscowSoft.

I hope you wouldn't mind sharing your reference source with me.

I guess the real test of Patent Claims Construction will come with the current litigation. Besides the basic premise of the Patent, it mostly boils down to the Proper Terms/words used, so that the terms used, cover almost every instance and the language can not be misconstrued, or twisted around by the Defence and it's witnesses to mean something else. As in the original Markman v. Westview that created the need for Markman hearings.

49'er

Herbert Markman patented a system to track clothes through the dry cleaning process using barcode to generate receipts and track inventory.

The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in patent infringement cases. The 7th Amendment preserves the right to jury trial as it existed in 1791. There is no dispute that infringement cases today must be tried by a jury as their predecessors were in 1791. However, the court held that the construction of the patent, including the terms of art within its claim, is exclusive within the province of the court.

In general, the effectiveness of a particular patent depends on its potential at blocking competitors. The key for a patent holder is getting the proper definition of words used in the patent to allow blocking of the particular troublesome competitive product. PHerbert Markman patented a system to track clothes through the dry cleaning process using barcode to generate receipts and track inventory.

The 7th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in patent infringement cases. The 7th Amendment preserves the right to jury trial as it existed in 1791. There is no dispute that infringement cases today must be tried by a jury as their predecessors were in 1791. However, the court held that the construction of the patent, including the terms of art within its claim, is exclusive within the province of the court.

In general, the effectiveness of a particular patent depends on its potential at blocking competitors. The key for a patent holder is getting the proper definition of words used in the patent to allow blocking of the particular troublesome competitive product.


Prior to this decision, juries had the responsibility of deciding what the words used in patent claims meant. Opposing results in cases with similar facts were common, and a perception arose that the outcome of such trials was somewhat arbitrary.

In Markman, the Court held that judges, not juries, would evaluate and decide the meaning of the words used in patent claims. Judges were to look at four sources for definitions in order of priority:


1. The written description accompanying the patent claims is most relevant;

2. The documentation of the history of the patent as it went through the application;

3. Standard dictionaries of English;

4. Finally, if all else fails, expert testimony from experts "skilled in the art" at issue.

This case has had a significant impact on the patent litigation process in the United States. Many jurisdictions now hold Markman hearings to construe patent claims prior to the start of the actual trial. Patent infringement suits now often settle after this stage of the litigation process.