Eight., Despite Du's myriad of errors and false conclusions, it feels like our burden is disproportionately greater to overcome by comparison to those placed on the defendants. If the former carried more weight, why don't we see a much greater consensus in support of a win, instead of some levels greater than a coinflip?
As we see in criminal cases, we have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden to meet. How is that much different from "clear and convincing evidence?"
We have so "many" shiny objects for the Judges to choose from. But shouldn't one be enough? If yes and no, it depends, then wouldn't having as many as we do, be enough to be as close to a guarantee as we can get? Let’s assume our Judges are less favorable to patentees, at what point would they bite their noses to spite their faces, so as to outDO DU? Or concern for triggering some kind of Judicial review? At the very least, a cost to their reputations .. ego… etc.
ILT
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
