On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > . . . there is the argument that any fair-selection of jurors would find >> convincing: >> >> If it was so obvious then why didn't your GE/DoE/APS/etc... clients >> deploy this technology decades ago? >> > > 1. Patent disputes are not decided by juries. The judges are experts in > patent law. > That's wrong. > > 2. That argument would never fly. Many patents are never "deployed" > (commercialized). That is irrelevant. The only degree of obviousness you > need is in the technical description. > Where the utility is shown to be, in fact, as great as the hypothetical utility of the Rossi HotCat, it is very hard to argue that the patent was never deployed to commercial advantage despite being obvious. That much should be obvious, even to a judge that is an expert in patent law.
