NTP Trying To Drag Out The Patent Rejection Process? Wonder Why...

from the hmm dept

Last week the US Patent Office took the surprising step of reaching out and calling both RIM and NTP to let them know that it's very, very likely to reject all of NTP's patents at the heart of the excruciatingly long patent battle with RIM. This was extremely important because the judge in the patent lawsuit had said that he wouldn't wait for the Patent Office's ruling, mainly because he was sick of dealing with the case (who knew that impatience was a reasonable reason for ignoring important evidence and pushing a billion dollar fine?). So, now, the two parallel timelines become much more important. The companies are supposed to file documents with the court by February 1, 2006 -- and the judge is expected to rule soon afterwards. As for the patent review process, NTP was supposed to get its response in by the end of this month, but has managed to squeeze out a 30-day extension meaning it won't have to file the response until the nearly the same date as when the judge will make his decision. While NTP denies it's dragging out the process, it's clearly in the company's interest to do so. Still, we wonder how the judge can, in good conscience, still move forward with the case when the Patent Office has clearly stated that it believes it made a huge mistake in originally granting these patents. Meanwhile, it still seems like a reasonable question as to whether RIM can sue the Patent Office for its admitted negligence in issuing these patents (though, of course, they might want to wait until the patents are really rejected).

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    patentman, 30 Dec 2005 @ 1:07pm

    Re: ridiculous

    Your test has some attractiveness to it, but it also suffers from some flaws. It might be helpful as a supplement to the current standard of obviousness (whether one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to do what the applicant has done), but its a little inflexible to replace it. How close would the two patent applications have to be filed to one another in order to be considered indicative of an obvious modification? One day? One week? One year?

    Also, competitors are often researching the same or similar technologies. The fact that they may both have a "breakthrough" around the same time and file patent applications at around the same time does not necessarily give any indication as to how "obvious" the technology is. Indeed, check out www.zubbles.com (its a site about newly developed colored bubbles). The technology of colored bubbles is seemingly simple, but it took 11 years to develop the correct dye formulation. I would think time in development might be a better standard of obiviousness then closeness in filing. But even time in development is subject to arguments regarding the qualifications of your researchers.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.