I actually see this issue pointing a spotlight toward a major problem with the patent system – perhaps the largest problem – that patents often fail to provide clear notice of what is and what is notcovered by the various claims.
Deference [by an appellate court] would have only masked the problem.
The reversal rate would have gone down and from that high level that traditional off-kilter signal would be missing. The real difference with deference would be that patent scope would be understood as of the district court decision rather than having to wait for an appeal.
That may help some litigants, but still it is a fairly ridiculous patent system where the scope of claims are not well understood until determined by a judge.
Emphasis added, and many patent practitioners will read Crouch's opinion today.
No comments:
Post a Comment