Jaytaylor, Good info but I not sure that I correctly followed the meaning of broad-scope patents in your post.
I had attended a conference where the patent experts including patent attorneys gave educational talks on subjects such as understanding patents, patent apply and approval process, and a basic level of how to write a patent.
One thing that they had emphasized was that one should not generalize the scope of patent. They had provided the reasons, but I don’t remember all. If my memory servers, here are they:
1. The patent office has tendency to reject the patent applications whose scope was broad/generalized.
2. (If needed) it’s tougher to use a scientific process to verify (all aspects), impossible in some cases, the patent applications whose scope was broad/generalized.
3. The broader or generalized patents are subjected for mis-interpretation therefore 1) claim construction can be misrepresented, and 2) Validity is more likely to be an issue, and etc…
I think the IDCC patents in the Nokia ITC case might be a victim of #1
Disclaimer, I am not anywhere close to a patent expert therefore my post can’t be guaranty to be right.
“Patents can have a broad, intermediate or narrow scope. Broad patents are worth alot, narrow ones very little. An essential patent is broad, because, by definition, no one can practice the industry Standard without infringing the patent. Even one essential patent is obviously worth a great deal. A narrow patent can be designed around usually by easy and minor changes and so is worth very little.”
