Paul Allen refiles patent infringement case
AppleInsider notes:
Allen's suit accuses the defendants of violating the following four patents:
•United States Patent No. 6,263,507 issued for an invention entitled "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
•United States Patent No. 6,034,652 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
•United States Patent No. 6,788,314 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
•United States Patent No. 6,757,682 issued for an invention entitled "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."
**See also
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/12/28/interval.resubmits.dismissed.lawsuit/
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2010/12/problem-with-allen-patent-infringement.html
Allen's suit accuses the defendants of violating the following four patents:
•United States Patent No. 6,263,507 issued for an invention entitled "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
•United States Patent No. 6,034,652 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
•United States Patent No. 6,788,314 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
•United States Patent No. 6,757,682 issued for an invention entitled "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."
**See also
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/12/28/interval.resubmits.dismissed.lawsuit/
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2010/12/problem-with-allen-patent-infringement.html
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 10:03 PM
1 Comments:
One big problem with a patent enforcement suit like this one is that the court is bound by patent law not to review claims for how obvious they seem now, but rather for how obvious they were at the time of filing. That's one of the difficulties raised by this kind of case, which asks a judge and/or jury to determine what might or might not have been obvious 20 years before. However, it's up to the court to determine the validity of the patents involved, and Allen has every legal right to use the system to his advantage.
Post a Comment
<< Home