Invalidating a patent satanist dating website
A straightforward clear text wasn’t available, but the patent did disclose a picture exactly as required.
Needless to say, this was enough to invalidate the patent in question.
So, one needs to know the ‘unconventional’ ways that one can take to get to those results.
Below we have shared four instances, where we were able to crack some tough cases, using some not-so-common tactics – be it 112 (a), 112 (f) prior-arts; taking reference from precedent cases; or making the best use of already-in-hand resources. It was about updating of a device remotely with some very specific limitations. Well, that worked really well in our favor as we found a ton of results before the latter date that helped our client invalidate that patent.
We made all possible efforts, and I have to say this: I did reach my saturation stage. As I was not being able to provide a good solution to our client, I took the concern to my Manager and Team Lead. We recollected some instances from the past where patents had been invalidated without even using a prior art. ” I had noticed that our patent in question had a , where a break in the priority chain led to change in the priority date of the patent, which further led to the usage of the same parent application of the patent to invalidate certain aspects of the patent. From having nothing to deliver to what ended as a very successful project, the tactic saved the day for both us and the client. TL; DR: When stuck in the midst of nowhere for an invalidation project, try to look for breaks in priority chain. Here as well, our analysis led the cut-off date to be shifted to the filing date of our target patent.
It had two priority documents taking earliest priority from a non-patent document (the other document (provisional application) had a later date).
Now, during the prosecution of the patent at USPTO – to avoid the rejections – the patentee had added a limitation to the claim which was – scheduling on the basis of certain specific parameters (earlier, the claim was broad covering any parameter and examiner had found a few references disclosing scheduling based on some parameters.
This gives us an idea of what features to look for in the search (just as the references cited in prosecution).