Replies to post #61541 on Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[Wilson-castaway]

So why didn't Microsoft deny SFOR the settlement if SFOR was infringing themselves

[joebro123]

Here you go boy.

Bottom line: By filing a string of
continuing patent applications and not claiming priority for the continuing patent applications back to a common parent application, the patent owner may be able to extend patent protection for its product.

Under U.S. patent laws, an inventor can file a series of successive child patent applications. This is commonly referred to as continuation practice as each application is a “continuation” of the earlier application. With some limitations, each successive child patent application can claim priority back to a different parent application in its lineage. Moreover, since a patent’s term is calculated from the date of the earliest priority parent application, it is possible to have two related patents sharing at least one common patent application in its lineage but having different patent terms, and thus effectively extend patent protection. However, the two related patents should be filed in response to a restriction requirement, as discussed further below, so that they are “divisional” applications rather than “continuation” applications.

Continuation practice may be beneficial to the patent owner in order to maintain pendency of the subject matter disclosed in the patent application. Doing so allows the patent owner to craft new claims at a later date to try and cover competitors trying to design around the base patent. If a competitor designs around the initial patent, then the continuation patent application can be used as a vehicle to introduce new claims crafted specifically for that competitor’s product.