I'm in great company
Back peddling is an art shared by every litigator since the Magna Carta was signed. I respect your views and I definetly take a back seat to your knowledge of Ropes, which must be far greater than mine.
However, just cutting and pasting decisions by other people adds little to the discussion, anyone can do that.
Never confuse a Judge’s desire to be solomonesque, between parties, with the reality of what occurred.
How then can Judge Caspar recite generalities that Congress MAY have thought of, to force a technical requirement, that in fact did NOT exist?
Is it not feasible that an Appellate could look at Judge Caspar’s ruling, easily determine the Inventor was under NO requirement to include an ADS at that time and allow the contested time period to be restated? Rather this was Judge Caspar seeking to grant a balanced decision. In contrast would an Appellate court also "close their eyes" in the absence of the requirement, and also rule in Activision's favor?
I'd like to know your reasons why, we already know Judge Caspars.
“Congress may well have thought that [this requirement] was necessary to eliminate the burden on the public to engage in long and expensive search of previous applications in order to determine the filing date of a later patent. . . . The inventor is the person best suited to understand the relation of his applications, and it is no hardship to require him to disclose this information
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
