> While it might seem odd that patents on vintage cameras could be valuable in the age of Instagram, when it comes to defending a patent in court, the more prior art a company can own, the better
This sentence seems wrong to me.
If I want to invalidate a patent does it matter who owns the prior art? Isn't all that's needed an example that someone, event the patent holder had disclosed the invention before it was patented? Shouldn't it be irrelevant who "owns" the prior art?
Two points. First, when you're requesting a patent be reexamined, you're talking to a patent examiner. To a patent examiner, patents are the most convincing form of prior art--if only because she's used to reading them.
Second, it's widely thought to be risky to have your engineers read other people's patents, because then, if they later infringe those patents, the court is more likely to hold that it was willful infringement, and triple the damages. So, if you've got to have your engineers spend time reading patents, looking for prior art on your competitor's patent, you generally want them to be reading your own patents.
You can't infringe on an expired patent, so you can have engineers read everyone else's expired patents without any fear of triple damages, no need to own anything. In fact that's the whole point of patents. After the monopoly has expired anyone can read the (hopefully) clear description of someone else's invention and use it.
It is wrong. All patents are publicly available for anyone to research and use as potential prior art for an invalidity defense in patent litigation. The author confuses this with the separate matter of answering an infringement suit by using your own currently in force patents to counter-sue for infringement.
Meant it in the sense of, you are defendant in patent lawsuit, and can show within your patent holdings, prior art related to plaintiff's infringement case.
> Meant it in the sense of, you are defendant in patent lawsuit, and can show within your patent holdings, prior art related to plaintiff's infringement case.
Sure but my point is that you don't need the prior art to be in your own patent porfolio, or even in a patent. You just need to show that the patent in question has prior art of any kind.
Right, but given the labyrinthine nature and colossal volume of software patents created over last decade, having your own trove and a team of lawyers to pore over them is best chance at catching prior art.
This sentence seems wrong to me.
If I want to invalidate a patent does it matter who owns the prior art? Isn't all that's needed an example that someone, event the patent holder had disclosed the invention before it was patented? Shouldn't it be irrelevant who "owns" the prior art?