July 25, 2013
In assertion, patent holders sling whatever they can at whoever they can. Par for the course of exploitative capitalism. But, as part of their war on patents (excepting those owned by large corporations), the CAFC issued a "model order" instructing trial courts to summarily dismiss seemingly redundant claims. Beside the sheer denial of legal right, this order contradicted Tafas v. Doll (CAFC 2009), which explicitly set no limit on claim assertion.
The root problem is at the PTO, which allows picayune prior art dependent claims, on top of needlessly duplicative claims. But then, the PTO is paid on a per-claim basis (over an allotted minimum).
The latest chapter in this episode is that CAFC's model order was sub silentio revoked by removal from its web site.
Nothing characterizes the CAFC better than inconsistency. What's rule of law have to do with it all? Absolutely nothing.
Posted by Patent Hawk at July 25, 2013 5:13 PM | Litigation