MMRGlobal, Inc. (fka MMRF)

[EsqInvestor]

It's up to the respondent to prove they aren't in violation - that's the bottom line.

Okay, no. That's not the way it works. Patent infringement must be proved by the patent owner. It's not a criminal burden (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt), but a civil burden (i.e., more likely than not).

If they decide to put responding off (their right) they can sometimes meet an unfortunate ends with fines and restitution to make the IP/patent holder whole which can be big $$$ depending on the level and scale of infringement.

Um, no? Damages must be proved too. There's no statutory damages (unlike copyright law). There are no "fines" and there is no guarantee of "restitution." The type and scope of damages need to be proved by the patent holder.

There is potential for willful infringement once a party is on notice which can result in treble (i.e., triple) damages. However, that's become a pretty steep burden to prove: knowledge of an patent and recklessness with regard to the patent rights. This, however, can be defeated with a reasonable invalidity or non-infringement position.

Of course the other avenue is to prove the patent shouldn't have been issued by filing a claim with the USPTO for a review.

Not a requirement to invalidate a patent. Invalidity under 35 USC Secs. 101, 102, 112 are all defenses to patent infringement.