Probably not. As I understand it, juries decide who should win and then fill out the jury form accordingly.
If we really wanted the jury to consider the dependent claims, the claim language should be on the jury form.
8
Anyone know the firms representing each side?
7
Today: “Docket Text ORDER: Motion to Clarify 1571 is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Judgment 1569 is not a Final Appealable Judgment in view of the remaining issues for the Court to decide. Once any outstanding claims are ruled by this Court, a Final Appealable Judgment shall issue. So Ordered by Judge E. Richard Webber. (BABS) (Entered: 08/08/2012)”
6
Do we really think that the jury gave due consideration to every single dependent claim?
Probably not. As I understand it, juries decide who should win and then fill out the jury form accordingly.
If we really wanted the jury to consider the dependent claims, the claim language should be on the jury form.
Anyone know the firms representing each side?
Today: “Docket Text ORDER: Motion to Clarify 1571 is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Judgment 1569 is not a Final Appealable Judgment in view of the remaining issues for the Court to decide. Once any outstanding claims are ruled by this Court, a Final Appealable Judgment shall issue. So Ordered by Judge E. Richard Webber. (BABS) (Entered: 08/08/2012)”
Do we really think that the jury gave due consideration to every single dependent claim?
But seeds aren’t patentable.
Mechanical devices aren’t patentable.
Electrical circuits aren’t patentable.
Trash the whole thing and let everybody steal what they want,because the internet wants to be FREEEEEEEEE !
Who represented these parties?
Fixed it. Thanks.
I was excited to type “First!” Shouldn’t you be watching Olympics Fan? Link still isn’t working.
Hi Dennis,
This link doesn’t seem to be working.
Thanks
Comments are closed.