As noted many times..... Alleged nodal test results have never been revealed afaik. You can add to that something I've been claiming for years regards efficacy, which I've pointed out that patent "validity" does not include efficacy. I've pointed that out due to the apparent belief by so many that patent validity means it does what it claims, ie, is "all that". Sorry kids, but it doesn't. Here's a couple of key sentences regards this critical thing...
"Does a patent application have to prove its efficacy?
No, an inventor doesn't need to prove that an invention works to get a patent. Instead, they only need to show that they had the idea. However, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may request a working model if the invention is novel, non-obvious, or defies expectations. A working model can strengthen a patent claim and increase the chances of making money.
_____________
People also ask
Do you have to prove something works to patent it?
An inventor need only show that he or she had the idea; the discovery that an invention is reduced to practice (i.e., actually works) is not required to prove the date or content of the invention.
Therefore, the entire question of whether or not a patent of this type can actually do what it claims to be able to do......would be IF the USPTO requested a working model. I've asked before and no one seems to know.....is if the USPTO did indeed ask Vplm for such a working model? My understanding is that they usually do not ask for. Thus, if they did not ask for, then you can now see and understand how patents can be obtained that make unsubstantiated claims, which in turn, allows A STORY to be SOLD!
I anticipate at that juncture, some would claim such claims lacking efficacy, would've been proven or disproven one way or the other in the IPR trials. To that I say ok...were any working models that could've demonstrated workability required/requested in this IPR trials? Debates between lawyers before the court, that dealt only with the patent verbiage, such as or similar to what happens in a markman hearing, would, in my opinion, not prove anything in terms of proof of workability, but rather, would simply bear out the meanings of this, that or the other verbiage used......and that......STILL.....proves nothing and only establishes the court accepted definitions of various terms. I see it as, in the end..........a major loophole, waiting for someone like lord emu of eGipped, to come along and exploit, or attempt to, just like he did in his BS Avatar claim. He learned some important lessons in that debacle, ie, that he was almost immediately shot down with proof by Cameron, thus he learned to present something big that was impossible to prove to be bogus.....unless the USPTO had the sense to require from vplm, a working model, which in turn, would require many working models since there are many different patents. So what it comes down to is if he was able to get over on the USPTO procecutions, by... how's that saying go? "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you can baffle them with bullshit".......or something like that.
All my commentary is to be considered as my personal opinions, to which I am entitled. And there is no proof of said opinions unless I offer it in the comments.
