Replies to post #422565 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mickeybritt]

olddog

First no one is arguing the obvious the Patent act is uncsonstitutional
at it would require a constitutional amendment. Second you give or award
someone something and later retake it that is confiscating what you
had been given since you didn't willingly turn it back over.

But you can't get around it being your papers covered by the 4th amendment
as it isn't the patent offices papers it is yours something that is covered
by the 4th amendment, The government is ultimately be found guilty of
violating the constitution. The 1st amendment stops this crap and they
have no right to pass any law that takes away our constitutional rights.
It would be called a amendment explaining what the amendment was doing
in detail and there is no amendment saying patent owner's rights are
not covered but rather the constitution encourages progress and patents
be protected for 20 years.

JMO
Mickey

[la-tsla-fan]

OLDDOG:

The two cases you cite convince me, more than ever before, that lawyers can use words to obfuscate even the simplest concepts.

Whether a PTAB invalidation of a clause qualifies as a taking or not is less important than the fact that a PTAB invalidation is an admission of an original error by the USPTO. Perhaps, the USPTO is justified in keeping the upfront patent application charges, and even the maintenance fee (on the grounds that actual work was performed).

HOWEVER, I cannot see charging the patent holder their costs to invalidate the patent. The party that requests the PTAB hearing should be ENTIRELY responsible for the PTAB costs and reasonable costs incurred by the patent holder.

The above is just my opinion. What is yours?

LA