Didn't Apple say that OLED sucked big ones??????

[chubb]

Well Apple will downplay all tech that they are not using. Remember 7 inch tablets, 4+ inch phones? Wait untill Apples uses NFC. It won't be unsecure anymore, it will be the best thing Apple ever thought of. Sharing info across multiple devices, who knew?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[xlDeMoNiClx]

Well Apple will downplay all tech that they are not using. Remember 7 inch tablets, 4+ inch phones?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

And then they'll use that tech and pretend it was their plan all along when everyone goes for the devices that use that tech.

This is from me, on my EVO 3D.

 

[androidluvr2]

I am not being paid here to do legal research.

Neither am I but I don't need to because I know this stuff off of the top of my head.

But your statement about a prerequisite to invoke a court's jurisdiction makes no sense. Patent law is federal law and federal courts have jurisdiction of all questions involving patent law.

Not interference proceedings between patent applications or an application and a patent - those are in the jurisdiction of the USPTO. For instance, you can't file an interference proceeding between an issued patent and a patent application in federal court. So, no, federal courts do not have jurisdiction over all questions involving patent law - the USPTO has jurisdiction over some like interference proceedings.

How two patents can get involved in an interference in the federal courts depends upon how the case arises. Either of the owners of the patents can proceed with a declaratory judgment action asking the court to determine who the valid first inventor is. The question of first inventor is determined by interference practice, and the court has to determine who was the legal first inventor. Naturally, that determination will determine which patent is valid.

So then you agree, that is an invalidity determination, not an interference proceeding.

If either owner sues the other for patent infringement, then the sued party will defend by counterclaim that the inventor of the patent being sued on is not the first inventor. The court then must determine this question and again uses interference practice to make such a determination.

So then you agree, that is an infringement action, not an interference proceeding. And to point out to those who are reading this, in order to have an action for patent infringement, someone actually has to infringe a patent not just have a patent issued to them that interferes with another patent.

 

[androidluvr2]

Either of the owners of the patents can proceed with a declaratory judgment action asking the court to determine who the valid first inventor is. The question of first inventor is determined by interference practice, and the court has to determine who was the legal first inventor. Naturally, that determination will determine which patent is valid.

I suspect our disagreement arises out of nomenclature. You want to call a declaratory judgment on validity that involves a determination of who the first inventor is an interference proceeding. It's not, though. It is a declaratory judgment on validity.

Only the proceedings in the USPTO between 2 patent applications or a patent application and an issued patent are properly termed interference proceedings.

Edited to Add - Just to further clarify, you are calling an interfering patents suit in federal court - which is a declaratory judgment asking for a ruling of invalidity - an interference proceeding. However, the term interference proceeding is a term that means and only means a proceeding in the USPTO between 2 patent applications or a patent application and an issued patent.

 

[idaute]

I suspect our disagreement arises out of nomenclature. You want to call a declaratory judgment on validity that involves a determination of who the first inventor is an interference proceeding. It's not, though. It is a declaratory judgment on validity.

Only the proceedings in the USPTO between 2 patent applications or a patent application and an issued patent are properly termed interference proceedings.

Now, I will ask you a simple question to show you that your off your head knowledge can be deceiving. Say that we have an interference proceedings being conducted in the Patent Office (and agreed that would have to be between two applications or an application and a patent). It is however only an interference proceedings, no other side issues. Now, the losing party appeals that decision. The first appeal will be to a Patent Office board that is partial to the decision that the patent examiner made, so we assume that the losing party loses again and appeals again. However, to be accurate, the Board of Appeals could reverse the decision of the patent examiner, and in that case the original winning party could appeal. To whom does the losing party from the Patent Office Board of Appeals appeal? The appeal court is a Federal Court and it decides the very exact same issues as were decided in the Patent Office. Is this an interference proceeding or does it magically change names? Now, that Federal Court is determining who the first inventor is and not the validity of the patent. If the losing party in the Patent Office proceedings prevails in the Federal Appeal Court, then the whole thing is sent back to the Patent Office for the Patent Office to conduct additional proceedings in accord with the decision of the Federal Appeal Court. So you see a proceeding in the Federal Court is indeed properly termed an interference proceedings and they can an do happen.

A question of who was the first inventor, whether decided by the Patent Office or a Federal Court is determined by the very same set of rules, and these rules are known as rules for interference proceedings. Now, if two patents have been issued on the same invention, the Federal Court will decide the question. The Federal Court has jurisdiction of matters involving patents, and the USPTO relinquishes its jurisdiction when only existing patents are involved. For the USPTO to retain jurisdiction, at least one patent application must be involved. I suppose that one of the patent owners could ask the USPTO for a re-examination of the other patent, and if all the other necessities are met for such a proceedings, the USPTO would then be determining the interference. But, if the issue of first to invent is directed by their owners of the patents to a Federal Court, that Federal Court follows the same exact rules as relate to interference proceedings in the Patent Office. A rose by any other name is still a rose. An interference proceeding in a Federal Court is an interference proceedings (you can add if you want in a Federal Court) and it is indeed identical to an interference proceedings (and you can add if you want in the USPTO). They are determined by one and the same set of rules for interference proceedings.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Aquila]

Well Apple will downplay all tech that they are not using. Remember 7 inch tablets, 4+ inch phones? Wait untill Apples uses NFC. It won't be unsecure anymore, it will be the best thing Apple ever thought of. Sharing info across multiple devices, who knew?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

And then they'll use that tech and pretend it was their plan all along when everyone goes for the devices that use that tech.

This is from me, on my EVO 3D.

Nice attempt to return the thread to the subject of the thread! Lol, this one's a goner. Oh well, the same thing will happen in a month or two and it can all start over.

 

[androidluvr2]

Nice attempt to return the thread to the subject of the thread! Lol, this one's a goner.

yeah, I am dropping off of this thread. It's just gotten too ridiculously off track.

 

[gnr_2]

To clarify, since March 1 of this year, the US is NOT a first to invent country. The US is now a first to the Patent Office country.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

.

And, your blanket statement that "if you weren't the first to invent something, even if you are issued a patent, on it your patent is invalid" is not entirely correct even under the old law of first to invent. If the first inventor kept his invention secret and made no diligent effort to reduce the invention to practice, then the second inventor that does make that diligent effort to reduce the invention to practice will be granted a valid patent.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

This happened a lot in history when women weren't allowed to apply for patents so the man that added improvements to the product was the one that applied for the patent and is remembered in history. For example, the cotton gin.

Sent from my totally awesome Sprint Galaxy Nexus, even if I don't know all its secrets yet.

 

[androidluvr2]

.
This happened a lot in history when women weren't allowed to apply for patents

I don't think women weren't allowed to apply for patents. Married women weren't allowed to own property until the Married Women's Property Acts were passed by the states. So a married woman could apply for one, but her husband would own it.

 

[gnr_2]

I don't think women weren't allowed to apply for patents. Married women weren't allowed to own property until the Married Women's Property Acts were passed by the states. So a married woman could apply for one, but her husband would own it.

Hmm.. I'll have to check that clarification.

Sent from my totally awesome Sprint Galaxy Nexus, even if I don't know all its secrets yet.

 

[androidluvr2]

Hmm.. I'll have to check that clarification.

Women were always allowed to file for patents and the first woman who was issued a patent got hers in 1809. Patent Act was passed in 1790 and it specifically said any person or persons, he, she or they.

That upon the petition of any person or persons to the Secretary of State, the Secretary for the department of War, and the Attorney General of the United States, setting forth, that he, she, or they, hath or have invented or discovered any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used, and praying that a patent may be granted therefor,

http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/patents/Patent_Act_of_1790.pdf

 

[xlDeMoNiClx]

Nice attempt to return the thread to the subject of the thread! Lol, this one's a goner. Oh well, the same thing will happen in a month or two and it can all start over.

It was a failed attempt it seems. Oh well, another one lost to the off-topic's.

This is from me, on my EVO 3D.

 

[gnr_2]

It was a failed attempt it seems. Oh well, another one lost to the off-topic's.

This is from me, on my EVO 3D.

If nothing else it was an interesting lesson on the patent process in the US and the upcoming changes that we can expect.

Sent from my totally awesome Sprint Galaxy Nexus, even if I don't know all its secrets yet.

 

[xlDeMoNiClx]

If nothing else it was an interesting lesson on the patent process in the US and the upcoming changes that we can expect.

Sent from my totally awesome Sprint Galaxy Nexus, even if I don't know all its secrets yet.

The only change I would like to see is the US patent system not being so broken that Apple can sue for all the things they have sued for.

This is from me, on my EVO 3D.

 

[gnr_2]

The only change I would like to see is the US patent system not being so broken that Apple can sue for all the things they have sued for.

This is from me, on my EVO 3D.

They'll just do it in other countries then. Oh wait, they already do that too! :

Sent from my totally awesome Sprint Galaxy Nexus, even if I don't know all its secrets yet.

 

[xlDeMoNiClx]

They'll just do it in other countries then. Oh wait, they already do that too! :

Sent from my totally awesome Sprint Galaxy Nexus, even if I don't know all its secrets yet.

Yeah and the US is the only place they win 99% of the time.

This is from me, on my EVO 3D.