Replies to post #23374 on Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[Arthur]

Suppose the company claims that *all* current VOIP apps are infringing its patent.

But, there were already VOIP apps back in 2006, before Digifonica applied for its patent.

A patents expert would merely have to show a single 2006 VOIP program, which, according to VPLM own claims, would be infringing. This would be sufficient to invalidate the patent, because the hypothetic 2006 program would have been publicly commercialized before the VPLM patent, so the patent didn't invent anything, it would merely have copied something that already existed.

So, to be really valuable, a VOIP patent would have to have those characteristics:

Before 2007 --> no known VOIP program had the special sauce.
After 2010 --> several VOIP apps are infringing .

[nyt]

That being the case, can you say whether or not this would be of any concern:

35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention...

The language that concerns me, hopefully mistakenly, is:
"...in public use... " AND "...or otherwise available to the public before... ... ..." (such language sounds like it over broadens the rule??)

[nyt]

That being the case, can you say whether or not this would be of any concern:

35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention...

The language that concerns me, hopefully mistakenly, is:
"...in public use... " AND "...or otherwise available to the public before... ... ..."