Replies to post #129213 on Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[nyt]

That's wrong imo. The question being begged by the challenger, would be to see if he can throw a challenge and see what sticks. I say that because a specific challenge to some claimed attribute of a patent is just that and seeks to invalidate on that basis, whereas the question of infringement is a whole other question. The 2 are mutually exclusive (if I said that correctly). In fact when you think about it, it soundsike such a challenge tried to remove itself from the infringement question. Maybe that's what you were saying and I missed it...

[nyt]

That's wrong imo. The question being begged by the challenger, would be to see if he can throw a challenge and see what sticks. I say that because a specific challenge to some claimed attribute of a patent is just that and seeks to invalidate on that basis, whereas the question of infringement is a whole other question. The 2 are mutually exclusive (if I said that correctly). In fact when you think about it, it soundsike such a challenge tried to remove itself from the infringement question. Maybe that's what you were saying and I missed it... In fact, the more I think about it, maybe that is what you meant, ie, the alleged infringer should know if they infringed or not and so if they know they did, then the only way to proceed is to try to invalidate. Is that what you're saying?

[nyt]

Either way, I still think that positive ipr outcomes for the patent owner do not add any more validity that the day the patent was born. Remember, any and all possible challenges should theoretically already been looked into by the examiner if he did his job fully. Each and every one of any possible challenges, should already be addressed in the patent itself because a challenger would presumably have to choose some attribute of the patent already written in to the patent.
Bottom line: as far as I'm concerned, unless and until someone can show me where a judge has ruled positive on an ipr challenge, in favor of the patent owner, based even partially on the fact of such "wins", then I maintain they add zero.

That said, it occurs to me that in the case of a jury decision, a jury presumably could vote however they want, regardless of case law or precedent......except I don't think ptab trials ever use a jury. I think they use one of those "corrupt" 3 judge tribunal panels, you know, likd the 3 seperate panels it took over a years for them to get the balls to finally come up with their ruling.....which, hahaha.....was the DIRECT RESULT OF THE WARNING BY TOM SAWYER THAT THEY BEST DO THE RIGHT THING OR FACE FEDERAL RICO CHARGES.

[SOu812]

Big Tech lobbied tirelessly under the Obama admin to get the PTAB established. They argued it would “save time and money” for the judicial system, but the obvious intent was to weaken patents and drag out the litigation process for years.

It worked out just as Big Tech hoped it would and why wouldn’t any potential patent infringer use the PTAB and IPR challenges to gain an advantage.