Right, all I'm saying is the trials are not about validation, they are solely about infringement. And strangely enough, I think it's possible to show infringement even if the patent is a dud and can't do what it claims. If it can be shown, regardless of that possibility, that the defendant is indeed using the patented technology, then he still could be found to be infringement. That's my opinion, my guess because it's logical. But I'm not a lawyer or judge. It's an interesting concept. The trials are to show infringement. So what if infringement can be shown and later, it can also be shown that the patent doesn't actually accomplish its stated abilities? Would that automatically invalidate the patent and reverse the infringement ruling? I doubt it. And what if an infringement ruling is made "with predudice"?? Whatever the case may be, it should be interesting. But hey, it looks more and more every day that ea case will have a settlement similar to the Amazon case, ie, another JOKE ON THE SHAREHOLDERS WHO WILL BE PISSED ON.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
