interesting read from Aladdin YMB regarding the google-netlist stuff
there is a lot of info in these articles etc... but the last sentence in what i picked (worth the read) out seems to say a lot. See below.
Implications for Post-Grant Proceedings
The application of intervening rights varies among the different types of post-grant procedures. For reissue proceedings, intervening rights arise under 35 U.S.C. § 252. For ex parte and inter partes reexamination, however, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that intervening rights involves a two-step analysis: first the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 307(b) (ex parte) and 316(b) (inter partes) must be met; second, the requirements of § 252 are considered.
Under 35 U.S.C. §252, a patentee may recover damages for the period between issuance of the original claims and issuance of the modified claims if the original and modified claims are “substantially identical.” The Federal Circuit has clarified that the term “substantially identical” requires that the modified claims be “without substantive change” vis-à-vis the original claims.50 This analysis focuses on “whether the scope of the claims [is] identical, not merely whether different words are used.“51 “If substantive changes have been made to the original claims, the patentee is entitled to infringement damages only for the period following the issuance of the” modified claims.52
For ex parte and inter partes reexamination, however, the Federal Circuit has clarified that application of 35 U.S.C. § 252 is not the first step in the analysis. For claims that undergo reexamination, the “threshold statutory requirement” appears in 35 U.S.C. §§ 307(b) and 316(b), which provide for intervening rights under § 252 only if “amended or new” claims are incorporated into a patent during reexamination.53 Thus, ”[o]nly if the claim at issue is new or has been amended may the court proceed to the second step in the analysis and assess the substantive effect of any such change pursuant to § 252.“54
Merely cancelling claims, or presenting arguments to the examiner, is insufficient to trigger intervening rights, even if such actions “may have affected the remaining claims’ effective scope.“55
Bottom line, and getting above my pay grade but all the validation aint for nuttin. Goog cant just say things and then one should believe them, ever. We are here because they infringed and were caught after saying they werent, IMHO, its when paid, not if. Treble damages.
AI
