

RunwayFinder to fight the FlightPrep patent - soitgoes
http://blog.runwayfinder.com/2010/12/17/the-road-forward/

======
hristov
I urge that guy to find a patent attorney. It can be very dangerous to
represent yourself in such a case. It is usually dangerous to represent
yourself, but for patent cases it is 10 times more dangerous, because:

(1) patent law is very complex. Even ordinary lawyers usually will not
litigate patent cases unless they specialize in patent law only. Insurance
companies will usually not insure attorneys that do not specialize in patent
law for patent work.

(2) damages for patent cases can be very large. Damages can often break a
company.

I read the post and he says some things that are simply wrong. For example the
following statement:

"In order to be infringing on a patent, a person or entity must be infringing
on every one of the claims that are linked together. Thus, an infringement
would need to be on all of claims 1-10, or all of claims 11-20, or all of
claims 21-23 for this patent."

is, in my humble opinion, wrong wrong worng!!! If you hang your hopes on the
above you will have a nasty surprise waiting for you.

By the way, I am a patent attorney, but none of the above is legal advice.
Just some friendly advice to get a lawyer.

~~~
tonystubblebine
Why is it wrong wrong wrong? What's the relevant law on linked claims?

~~~
hristov
Generally, you infringe a patent if you infringe a single claim. There is no
such term as "linked claims." There is something called a dependent claim,
which is a claim that references another claim in a specific way. A dependent
claim includes all the language of the claims it depends on.

Thus, if claim 5 says something like, "The system of claim 3, wherein" and
claim 3 says something like "The system of claim 1, wherein" then claim 5 will
probably be deemed to include all the language of claims 3 and 1. However,
claim 1 does not necessarily include claims 3 and 5 and you can infringe claim
1, even if your system does not have any of the elements listed in claims 3
and 5.

~~~
ScottBurson
OTOH, if you don't infringe claim 1, you _can't_ infringe claims 3 and 5. I
think that's what he was getting at, even if he didn't express it correctly.

------
andrewljohnson
You should definitely get an attorney if you can at all afford it.

But either way, I appreciate you taking up this fight. These types of patent
suits are particularly obnoxious when brought to bear on early-stage
entrepreneurs, where they are clearly not protecting innovation, but rather
stifling it. Each person willing to fight brings us a step closer to a patent-
free world.

Please post a way for us to donate money to fund your fight. And also
potentially contact a non-profit to help (does the EFF take up patent
disputes?)

------
kljensen
If the Rf duder is reading this, feel free to contact me. IANAL but I know
thousands because I own the most popular patent litigation news service.

~~~
geoffw8
priorsmart - very clever name.

~~~
kljensen
Thanks, credit to my wife.

------
ryanwaggoner
Wasn't this guy going to simply shut the company down? I agree that he should
get a patent attorney if he can afford one, but if he can't, I don't see how
this is any worse than just shutting down [1]. What does he have to lose?

1\. This assumes that he has a limited-liability company of some kind and has
run it correctly to avoid them piercing the veil.

~~~
cd34
If a single person holds all positions in the LLC, i.e. closely held, that
veil is easily pierced as they can say 'you' committed the negligence as the
GM of the company and the company is just a tax vehicle. In this case, a
closely held LLC or S-Corp provides very little liability protection, and his
E&O insurance will reflect that.

------
CamperBob
_The linked claims are called dependent claims. In order to be infringing on a
patent, a person or entity must be infringing on every one of the claims that
are linked together. Thus, an infringement would need to be on all of claims
1-10, or all of claims 11-20, or all of claims 21-23 for this patent._

The claims that refer back to 1, 11, and 21 are included in case claims 1, 11,
and 21 are dismissed.

Say claim 1 is found invalid, and claim 2 depends on claim 1. If claim 2 is
held to be valid and you're found to be infringing claim 2, you're hosed
regardless of whether you infringe any other claims besides 2.

