Wi-Lan v. Apple: “Clarification” or “reconstruction”?

By Jason Rantanen

Wi-Lan, Inc v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) Download Opinion
Panel: Reyna (author), Wallach, Hughes

Although precedential, this case doesn’t really break new patent-law ground.  Instead, it offers a data point in the tricky issue of whether a post-verdict modification to the construction of a claim constitutes a permissible “clarification” or an impermissible “reconstruction.”    The opinion also provides an example of how claim construction can operate at multiple levels, in this case by applying to both the meaning of a given term and the meaning of that term in the broader context of the claim.

Wi-Lan, the owner of RE37,802, a patent relating to wireless data communication, sued Apple and others for infringement based on their manufacture and sale of standards-compliant products. Claim 1 of the ‘802 patent reads:

1. A transceiver for transmitting a first stream of data symbols, the transceiver comprising:

a converter for converting the first stream of data symbols into plural sets of N data symbols each;

first computing means for operating on the plural sets of N data symbols to produce modulated data symbols corresponding to an invertible randomized spreading of the first stream of data symbols; and

means to combine the modulated data symbols for transmission.

(emphasis added).  The critical claim constructions related to “modulated data symbols,” which the district court construed to mean “data symbols that have been spread apart by spreading code” and “first computing means,” which the district court construed to be a means-plus-function element linked to particular structure disclosed in the specification.   Applying these constructions, a jury found that Apple did not infringe and that the ‘802 patent was invalid as anticipated.  Following trial, the district judge denied Wi-Lan’s request for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on infringement but granted its request for JMOL of no invalidity based on a modified construction of the structure to which “first computing means” corresponded.

The Interdependent Text and Claim Construction

On appeal, Wi-Lan challenged the district court’s denial of JMOL on infringement (effectively challenging the jury verdict of no infringement).  This issue largely turned on an issue of claim construction: whether the district court’s constructions precluded Apple’s noninfringement defense, a defense premised on the argument that the claims required that data symbols be randomized before combining them, while Apple’s products combined the symbols before randomizing them.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with Apple.  The text of the claim indicated that the modulated data symbols had to be randomized before combining them.  The “first computing means” produces “modulated data symbols corresponding to an invertible randomized spreading of the first stream of data symbols.'”  The second means then combines “the modulated data symbols for transmission.”  Since “[s]ubsequent uses of the definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ in a claim refers back to the same term recited earlier in the claim,” slip op. at 10, quoting Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the term “the modulated symbols” in the second means element referred back to the randomized modulated symbols produced by the first means element, thus requiring randomization-before-combination.  This construction was consistent with the specification.

Wi-Lan’s principal contention was that during its pre-trial construction of  “modulated data symbols,” the district court rejected Apple’s argument that the term requires randomization.   But, the Federal Circuit held, the district court’s construction only involved the unmodified, generic term “modulated data symbols.”   Apple’s argument involved the intersection of the full language in the first means element with the use of “modulated data symbols” in the second means element:  “Even though generic ‘modulated data symbols’ do not have to be randomized, the recited ‘modulated data symbols corresponding to an invertible randomized spreading‘ do have to be randomized.”  Slip Op. at 11.  Through its use of “the,” the  second means element referred back to those randomized data symbols.  Since Apple’s products combined then randomized, there was no direct infringement.  (The Federal Circuit also disposed of Wi-Lan’s argument of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.)

Post-verdict claim construction

Prior to trial, the district court construed the means-plus-function element “first computing means” as “element 12 of Figures 1 and 4, columns 2:6–10, 2:36–40, 2:58–62, 4:2–12, and 4:35–44, and equivalents thereof.”  Using this construction, the jury found the claims to be anticipated by a prior art reference that used real multipliers to randomize the “modulated data symbols” rather than complex multipliers.  In granting Wi-Lan’s motion for JMOL of no invalidity, however, the district court “determined that, although its construction of computing means ‘does
not specifically provide for a complex multiplier,’ a complex multiplier was nevertheless necessary because ‘expert witnesses from both sides agreed that complex multipliers are part of the structure of the ‘first computing means’ as taught by the ’802 patent.'”  Slip Op. at 8.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit concluded that this was an instance of impermissible post-verdict reconstruction.  “‘[I]t is too late at the JMOL stage to argue for or
adopt a new and more detailed interpretation of the claim language and test the jury verdict by that new and more detailed interpretation.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003).”  Slip Op. at 16.  None of the corresponding structure in the court’s pre-trial construction mentioned complex multipliers or referred to the patent figure involving complex multipliers.

While a district judge may adjust constructions post-trial if the court merely elaborates on a meaning inherent in the previous construction,” Mformation
Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
764 F.3d 1392, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 2014), this was not such a case.  Such “clarification” is allowed because it only makes “plain . . . what should have been obvious to the jury.”  Slip Op. at 17, quoting Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific, 658 F.3d 1347, 1355–57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).  Here, the implicit requirement of a complex randomizers was not obvious to the jury, particularly given conflicting testimony over whether the claims actually did require the use of a complex randomizer.  The result was that the district court did not simply elaborate on the meaning of its prior claim construction in the post-verdict opinion, but altered that construction, something that it could not do.

42 thoughts on “Wi-Lan v. Apple: “Clarification” or “reconstruction”?

  1. Dear Readers, I know this one is a bit Off Topic but by posting the Link below I hope to get some illuminating comments on the subject of how the legal system in an English law jurisdiction can be misused and thereby fall into disrespect:

    link to theguardian.com

    See, when witnesses in a partybus plot together to swear dodgy affidavits, English law adversarial proceedings can be defeated. Methinks the cheaters would not prosper quite so much on the European mainland, with its civil law fact-finding processes.

    I believe English law is inherently fairer. But when I see witness collusion stories like this one, it bothers me. Could it happen, does it happen, in the USA?

    Any comments?

    1. Yes, I have a comment. If you wish to be taken seriously in the U.S. and most of England, stop citing The Guardian as authority.

      1. Can you clarify please? What is not taken seriously? The Guardian newspaper, the one which broke the Snowden story? The one whose motto is “Comment is free but facts are 3acr9d”?

        Or is it just Guardian readers? That anybody who chooses to read The Guardian reveals themselves as a person who cannot be taken seriously? Does it make a difference to right-thinking people, whether that Guardian reader happens to be female?

        Forget that the story about the epidemic of spurious insurance claims was run in The Guardian. Shield your eyes from the surrounding material and just read what insurance giant Aviva says about England being the whiplash claim capital of Europe. Apart from the growing number of “staged” car crashes in the north of England, a plague of spurious insurance claims that net a load of money for those who make them. Sorry if thinking about that issue is too hard or too boring for you.

      2. Thanks for the tip tour. But as to your “seriously” may I ask you, seriously, is the perception in “the U.S. and most of England” that the aforesaid newspaper itself is not a “serious” source of news, or that those who read it betray themselves as not “serious” people?

        1. Sorry, readers, about the duplication. My 5.1.1 was held up through much of today “awaiting moderation” so I posted something less wordy, at 5.1.2

  2. It is important to note that this is a jury verdict in favor of the defendant on both invalidity and non-infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. Patent owners do not seen to have noticed [or care?] how surprisingly common that has become in that District lately, since they are still filing patent suits there at a remarkably high rate. Presumably, hoping to get settlement payments before either validity or infringement ever gets decided in the very small percentage of such suits that ever go to trial?
    In this case, after the jury verdict for the defendant, Judge Gilstrap had tried to reverse the jury verdict of invalidity. That would, of course, have allowed the patent owner to continue suits against anyone else on the patent.

    1. BTW, according to recently reported statistics Judge Gilstrap now has 20% of all U.S. patent suits assigned to his docket, after the recent flood of new suits to dodge the end of FRCP Form 18 and the likely requirements of much less ambiguous complaints, IF Judge Gilstrap requires that.

      1. Has anyone filed a Motion to Dismiss on those grounds yet? I’ve seen a few complaints filed post Dec 1, and I have to say, they didn’t seem to include much more detail than they did before (e.g., “infringe at least claim x” without naming other claims, listing the accused product but not saying how exactly it allegedly infringed, making legal conclusions re infringement without any factual contentions that would back it up)

        It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out, though I assume it will be a while yet before we have the Federal Circuit weighing in.

        1. Jane, identifying at least one specific claim and specific accused product is already an improvement over some prior FRCP Form 18 complaints. As you note, it will take Fed. Cir. decisions to see what more, if any, might be required. But if any D.C. somewhere actually dismisses a complaint as inadequate, and then also does not accept a proposed supplemental complaint, perhaps a Fed. Cir. decision could come fairly soon?
          Especially since this FRCP rule change is NOT devoid of suggested potential retroactive application to other recently filed complaints [by judges who want to].

          1. Especially since this FRCP rule change is NOT devoid of suggested potential retroactive application to other recently filed complaints [by judges who want to].

            Want to show a basis for this “NOT devoid“….?

            1. “The language of the Supreme Court’s April 2015 order that accompanied their transmittal to Congress suggests that, in some cases, they may not be retroactive. The order states that the new rules “shall govern in all proceedings in civil cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending.” The Supreme Court has included this language when submitting previous amendments to the FRCP to Congress.
              In the past, courts have generally found that it is “just or practicable” to apply the new rules in all cases as soon as they are promulgated. Courts typically apply the new rules unless doing so would “work a manifest injustice” or prejudice one or both parties. For example, when assessing whether to apply the amendment to Rule 56 in 2011, the First Circuit cited the Supreme Court’s “just and practicable” language in deciding to apply the rule as amended, rather than the version of the rule in place when the case was originally filed.”

                1. Thanks Paul, as far as I know, legislation remains legislation – even for FRCP.

                  Were the suggestions from the court adopted by Congress in the proper branch of the government’s legislation? If so, then your comment has merit (and you would be better off pointing to that than to the direct comments of the Court). If NOT, then the fact that Congress did NOT feel those comments pertinent enough to include should tell you that the Court’s comments ARE NOT pertinent to the final legislation.

                2. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, not Congress. Congress has 7 months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. Just veto them or not, not amend, not qualify.

                3. So that means that the comment that you want to refer to was adopted by Congress then (as I [politely] asked)…?

      2. A jurist who gave a crxp about justice would sua sponte require those “beat the deadline” b0ttom-feeders to re-do their contentions. There’s a reason the rules were formally changed and those reasons are plenty sufficient to justify the do-ever.

        1. Suasponte…?

          Because “justice” somehow is whatever Ends Malcolm desires – no matter that the means (or following the actual law passed, including its appointed transition periods)…

          Yes, Malcolm there was a reason why the rules were changed, just as thre was a reason why the rules were nto changed “instantly.”

          Don’t like it? You can stop your mewling and contact your Congressman, but please, let’s stop the vapid “g-g-gr-ifters” C R P.

          1. Don’t like it? You can stop your mewling and contact your Congressman,

            No, I’m glad the rules were changed. It’s an improvement.

            Because “justice” somehow is whatever Ends Malcolm desires

            No, because justice requires that b0ttom-feeding tr0lls trying to drag hundreds of people into Texas with a junk patent be forced to do the right thing, i.e., write some infringement contentions that aren’t complete jokes.

            But go ahead and defend those b0ttom-feeders, “anon”! I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough how awesomely ethical they are, right? Right.

            1. Malcolm,

              Once again you seem incapable of connecting dots that any child can connect.

              I am NOT defending any bottom-feeders when I point out the typical dross and banality of your posts.

              The point is that your posts are nothing more than banal dross.

              1. “anon” I am NOT defending any bottom-feeders

                When some commenter makes the reasonable suggestion that it would be just for jurists to force “beat the deadline” b0ttom-feeders in Texas to do their contentions over to comply with the rule and you respond with a nimwit attack on that commenter you are certainly “defending the bottom feeders”.

                Just own it, coward.

                1. Just own it, coward.

                  From the biggest one on these boards, … S I G H

                  Just another AccuseOthersOfWhatMalcomDoes

                  Your “version” of “attack” and :nimeit” are notoriously lacking.

                  Maybe (just maybe) actually address the counterpoints presented instead of the baseless and unsubstantiated ad hominem, eh Malcolm?

                  And no – delving into the means to the ends is NOT “defending the bottom feeders.” What you suggest is an absolute LACK of critical thinking, and a “the Ends justify the means” type of view. To you, ANY “criticism” of the Ends without (proper) means is an “attack” on the Ends themselves.

                  It just is not so in the real world, son.

          2. “anon” Don’t like it? You can stop your mewling and contact your Congressman

            No, I’m glad the rules were changed. It’s an improvement.

            And congrats on learning a new word, “anon”! It’s always been a great pleasure helping you expand your limited knowledge of the English language.

            1. ^^^ and another post by you that shows that you do not seem to be able to “get it.”

              It is NOT that I am “learning a new word.”

              Far from it.

              It is – as usual – that the words you choose to use to accuse others are the very words that describe your very own actions.

              Also, you quite miss the point in that I am not criticizing the change in rules (or defending anyone), but rather, you seem to miss the part of the rules changes that included a set time of change rather than an immediate change. That difference was there, on purpose, by Congress. You seem to want to take issue with that part of the rule change, want the judicial branch to rewrite the statutory basis of the legal change to suit your desired ends and pay NO attention the banality of the means to get to your desired ends.

              I made NO aspersions or comments on the new law.

              You kind of missed that point.

              Instead, my post highlights your own critical flaws when it comes to understanding the concept of law.

              Maybe, just maybe, you should actually read my comments for their content.

              I won’t be holding my breath, given that you have long ago (nearly a Fn decade now), shown that you do not post here in order to have any type of meaningful dialogue, but instead merely use (and abuse) this forum to engage in your own drive-by monologing advocacy.

              1. you seem to miss the part of the rules changes that included a set time of change rather than an immediate change. That difference was there, on purpose, by Congress.

                What was the purpose? Was it to encourage people to file reams of ridiculous infringement contentions hours before the deadline? Or was there some other purpose?

                1. What was the purpose?

                  An interesting question. Let’s circle back to my post at 4.1.2.1 and suggest (again) that you contact your congressman and ask him. After all, it was their purpose (and let me also point you to my response at 4.1.2.1.2.1 and how I remark that my comment is NOT to the law itself, but rather to your rather ham-handed “portrayal” of wanting to arrive at your desired ends without regard to the means that our legal system is constrained by (in other words, stop deflecting and stay on point).

              2. “anon” I made NO aspersions or comments on the new law.

                Sure you did. You made a comment about the “purpose” of the new law using your infamous Scrotactic method.

                I asked you what the purpose of the law was and you immediately started kicking up dust (surprise!). Go ahead and tell everyone your opinion about the new law and its purpose. That should be easy. After all, you’re the “expert.” So let’s hear it, “anon.”

                Or you can continue with your usual bizarre ranting.

                1. More baseless and empty ad hominem from Malcolm, instead of actually having a dialogue on the points presented.

                  Pay Attention Prof – here is your blight. What are you going to do about it?

  3. I’m curious about something – what if the post-verdict claim construction were the correct one? Why shouldn’t the district court be permitted to apply that claim construction to the evidence presented to the jury? Isn’t that essentially what the Federal Circuit did in the Exxon v Lubrizol case, where the Federal Circuit reversed on claim construction, applying its own, new claim construction, and then held there was no evidence of infringement under that new claim construction?

  4. Claim construction in the USA is a mess. I attribute that to the C+C Presumption of Validity (PV), the start of the sequence that starts with the absent horseshoe nail and results in the battle being lost:

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    It goes like this:

    Because of the PV, bad claims routinely survive scrutiny in court.

    Because bad claims survive, drafters (told what to do by litigators) write deliberately ambiguous claims (so litigators can have their cake and eat it too)

    As a consequence of such drafting, appeal courts are routinely faced with ambiguous claims that they are forced to construe.

    Because of that, the jurisprudence of claim construction is hopelessly complex.

    And because of that, both sides in a patent dispute routinely think they can win, even when in the large majority of disputed cases it is plain to any well-informed, intelligent and disinterested spectator what the result ought to be.

    And because of that, confidence in the patent system is low.

    And because of that, people start to assert that “the patent system is broken”.

    Well, despite what The Economist prints, it isn’t. At least, not outside the USA. Only the USA has the Presumption of Validity.

    But the PV is being beaten back now, isn’t it? At least at the USPTO. Like in the lawyer joke, I suppose that’s “a good start”. Trouble is, in the short term, having to construe the claim one way at the USPTO and another way in the courts of the USA just adds to the complexity.

    Good for lawyers though, eh?

    1. You are letting your old mantra (your view against C&C) run away with you – yet again.

      New year – same MaxDrei anti-US Sovereign view of law curse-ade.

      That’s not a want of a nail, but a slippery slope. Your horse is there by the well, thirsty, yet not drinking.

    2. Re: “The jurisprudence of claim construction is hopelessly complex.
      And because of that, both sides in a patent dispute routinely think they can win,”
      Max, without necessarily agreeing with your other assumptions, this one also needs important qualifications. It is too often the litigation attorneys for the “sides” who fail to discourage their “sides” from thinking that it is a good idea to continue the litigation, at least up to the trial date. Because it is not that common for either or both sides to obtain an expert second opinion from someone who does not have a large financial interest in continuing litigation. Especially if one side has a CEO who wants to fight all the way out of personal convictions and/or there is not effective in-house counsel. But the vast majority of patent litigation is ended by settlements to avoid discovery and other costs, or even genuine uncertainties as to a final outcome, irrespective of claim interpretation differences of opinion. Nor is proper claim construction always that obvious until after both expert testimony and then the “luck of the panel draw” at the Fed. Cir. where there are considerable differences between judges on some claim construction issues.

    3. Soooo many things wrong here – evidencing someone NOT trained in the art of critical thinking about law.

      But the PV is being beaten back now, isn’t it?

      PV cannot be “beaten back” short of an actual legislative change. If you had ANY inkling of the proper view so flaw, of understanding the differences between common law and statutory law, and of OUR sovereign’s purposeful set up, you would easily grasp this.

      But I get ahead of myself, let’s start at the start…

      Because of the PV, bad claims routinely survive scrutiny in court.

      Wrong – a baseless supposition which mirrors your own desired view point. PV does NOT save a bad claim. You are incorrectly making a judgement that NOT having PV would mean that only “true” claims would surive, and then you turn your view into an ASSumed “fact.”

      Because bad claims survive, drafters (told what to do by litigators) write deliberately ambiguous claims (so litigators can have their cake and eat it too)

      Wrong on MANY levels. Drafters do NOT act merely on what they are told to do by litigators – drafters have their own ethical duty. When drafters DO listen to litigators (and it would be smart to do so – for that element that claims must serve – but there is more than JUST that element. And since any knowledgeable (and properly trained and ethical) drafter is aware of this, your “causality” is a false one. Further, you imbibe in the Malcolm ven0m that litigators are merely “out to get theirs,” entirely dismissing the fact that litigators TOO have an ethical duty. Clearly, you are NOT an attorney, as you show a lack of training in the way of critical thinking – and respect for that training.

      As a consequence of such drafting, appeal courts are routinely faced with ambiguous claims that they are forced to construe. Because of that, the jurisprudence of claim construction is hopelessly complex.

      Logical non sequiturs.

      because of that, both sides in a patent dispute routinely think they can win, even when in the large majority of disputed cases it is plain to any well-informed, intelligent and disinterested spectator what the result ought to be.

      Meaningless impostion of your “view.” Somehow you think that “all of this” court fighting is “wrong” because of some “result that OUGHT to be” is plainly evident. I daresay your hubris is on par with your LACK of critical thinking. As has been amply displayed in your bubble chamber like agreement s on this blog, your “version” of what “ought to be” is not only highly questionable in and of itself, it is by no means so “plain” to any “well-informed, intelligent and disinterested spectator”, of which only the “spectator” part is something that you can properly lay claim to.

      And because of that, confidence in the patent system is low.

      LOL – that is NOT why confidence is low. You are this all arse backwards (and in truth, it is the purposeful weakening of patent rights that causes low confidence. SO in direct part, YOUR desired view of – and continuous attacks on things like C&C that are employed in order to attempt to bring low confidence.

      And this is exactly why the drum beat of such from you and Malcolm and the rest of the anti-strong-US patents need to be refuted. Your L1es told often enough just may garner a semblance of “truth,” enough to confuse those that do nto have the critical thinking skills to see through your malarkey.

      And because of that, people start to assert that “the patent system is broken”.

      That is expressly NOT why people are saying that the patent system is broken – again, leastwise those that understand the patent system as written and intended by the legislative branch of our government.

      Well, despite what The Economist prints, it isn’t. At least, not outside the USA.

      You double down and get multiple things wrong here as well. You seem to want to say the athe Economist is “correct” about the US – and it most decidedly was not. You then want to use this (false) idea to (again) draw a distinction across sovereigns – WITHOUT respect of the differences of those sovereigns, and again merely because of how you “Feel” the “right way” of your own is “so much better.”

      A mind like yours, NOT open to understanding and ever pushing a singular agenda, will fight these words, even attacking the person who offers them instead of LISTENING to the words.

      This has been going on with you MaxDrei like forever – and being polite or otherwise makes NO DIFFERENCE precisely because you have NO interest in anything other than your already predetermined viewpoint.

      That you picture yourself as “hungry” is a joke. You are only “hungry” for that which will confirm your already well-known biases.

      Nothing more.

  5. The UK Supreme Court test for claim construction is evident from this quote:

    “It is a common misunderstanding that the words of the claims should be understood as what the author used them to mean. This is not the case. Rather, the claims should be understood as what a skilled person (at the date of filing of the application) would have understood the author to be using the words to mean.”

    With that, you know where you stand and can tell your client what the claim covers and what it does not.

    For a link to the landmark case, see:link to en.wikipedia.org

    There are currently 142 comments on the “Razing” thread. I put it to you that the uncertainty on claim construction in the USA arises from there being no alternative to the tolerance (for over a hundred years) of claim drafting by untrained incompetent people. There is no such tolerance in jurisdictions outside the USA, where claim drafting is done by members of a specialist profession (as opposed to untrained and unqualified attorneys at law).

    The correct attitude to a bad claim is not to treat it as a nose of wax and skew its construction by as much as it takes to get to the desired result, but to find it invalid.

    1. I put it to you that the uncertainty on claim construction in the USA arises from there being no alternative to the tolerance (for over a hundred years) of claim drafting by untrained incompetent people

      Your comment does not make sense.

      The notion of “untrained incompetent people” is what the author of the “Razing” thread wants to move TO.

      The notion of “where claim drafting is done by members of a specialist profession” is what the US has – what the author of the “Razing” thread wants to move FROM.

      Your statement would have that backwards.

    2. People who practice before the PTO must have science backgrounds and may be lawyers. Examiners must have science background and may (but almost universally are not) lawyers. Litigators must be lawyers and may have science backgrounds.

      “It is a common misunderstanding that the words of the claims should be understood as what the author used them to mean. This is not the case. Rather, the claims should be understood as what a skilled person (at the date of filing of the application) would have understood the author to be using the words to mean.”

      Is that a common misunderstanding? I should hope not. Examiners certainly make use of this fact every day.

      1. Examiners do it every day? Indeed, Random. Of course they do. That’s my point.

        Why? Because they are told by the courts (Philips) that’s what they must do.

        As you see, the English Supreme Court thinks differently. Faced with the Chef America claim, for example, the Supreme Court in England would have construed it differently, because its test is different. The difference is fundamental and decisive in its effects.

        We can argue which test makes more sense. Or which is more true to the respective patent statute. But not anon. He will do no more than trot out his “respect our sovereign” formula. But I do respect the difference. That’s my point.

        1. You have a most odd way of showing that “respect,” MaxDrei, constantly touting your system as “best,” without regard to the actual differences in the laws – as decided** to be implemented by the different sovereigns.

          **decided by the branch of the government authorized by OUR constitution to write patent law.

          The problem is NOT the law- the problem is that the “scoreboard” is broken and it is the judicial branch mucking things up because that branch wants its version of the wax of nose to be how it wants it to be and keeps on trying to use the t001 of common law re-writing of the statutory law.

          You are simply too blinded by your desired ends to even see this, and you engage in fantastical windmill chases to try to pin the blame on an aspect of patent law that – in truth – help create THE driving difference of what was American ingenuity and set us above the rest of the world in innnovation.

Comments are closed.