Having worked on several patents with good patent attorneys I know that writing a defensible patent is very hard work and requires knowing what practical effect of your device. If you can't describe what something does your patent, even if accepted, is going to be very hard to defend.

As an aside, I still find it irksome that people will come here soliciting free consulting, first without saying that's what they are doing, and second expecting to make money from the work of others with no intention of compensating them. If someone says, "I am working on a device and can't disclose what it is and have the expectation of making money from it, but won't compensate you for helping but I would appreciate your help." Then people could choose to help or not with informed consent.

Not saying so up front seems underhanded to me.

Out of the 150k patents issued each year, the number of patents that actually get challenged is tiny (less than 1000. Patent courts are very likely to side with the inventor and even more so if the inventor is a private individual rather than a company - the attorneys helping inventors file patents like to overstate the value of their guidance. They are salesmen trying to preserve their jobs.

 

Out of the 150k patents issued each year, the number of patents that actually get challenged is tiny (less than 1000. Patent courts are very likely to side with the inventor and even more so if the inventor is a private individual rather than a company - the attorneys helping inventors file patents like to overstate the value of their guidance. They are salesmen trying to preserve their jobs.

The reason so few are challenged is because so few are worth challenging. Most disputes are settled by performative law suits followed by cross licensing. But if a small inventor does produce something with commercial value, they aren’t likely to have the resources to fight a large corporation if the patent isn’t airtight.

I have worked on patent infringement cases, mostly against patent trolls, and a lot of effort is spent finding the gaps in the patent in order to bypass it. It’s not very hard to do if there is anything ambiguous. It’s very hard to write a properly scoped patent.

 

The reason so few are challenged is because so few are worth challenging.

True, but a relatively small number of challenges doesn't support your claim of wins vs losses. The inventor rarely loses. Look up that stats or ask your lawyer to look them up. Patent lawyers are helpful but the risk of loosing a patent is much lower than any patent lawyer claims it is during the application process. Less than 10% of challenges that go to court result in an overturned patent. You should know that - you've been part of the process. Patent trolls don't win often.

 

True, but a relatively small number of challenges doesn't support your claim of wins vs losses. The inventor rarely loses. Look up that stats or ask your lawyer to look them up. Patent lawyers are helpful but the risk of loosing a patent is much lower than any patent lawyer claims it is during the application process. Less than 10% of challenges that go to court result in an overturned patent. You should know that - you've been part of the process. Patent trolls don't win often.

The issue isn't a ruling it's death by litigation or, sometimes, a cost-benefit assessment by the larger corporate entity. I had a client the was an agile, innovative technology company in a market with big players. They were very small but developed some very patentable technology concerning test equipment for the cable TV industry.

They were poised to take a lion's share of the sector when one of their major competitors (you would know the name) announced a new line obviously based on my client's patent. After four years of (very expensive) litigation, my client "won". Except, they didn't because the big name manufacturer had taken the market share and the settlement of the case involved paying a pretty substantial licensing fee and some penalties—but they still held the market share.

During discovery, emails were found explicitly discussing the benefit of simply infringing, then settling in court. It was an intentional strategy that worked for them. My client's did get some money but the infringers got the long-term business which my client's should have gotten.

This scenario is a bit different from a patent troll situation, but it is—I am told—not unusual.

 

The issue isn't a ruling it's death by litigation or, sometimes, a cost-benefit assessment by the larger corporate entity. I had a client the was an agile, innovative technology company in a market with big players. They were very small but developed some very patentable technology concerning test equipment for the cable TV industry.

They were poised to take a lion's share of the sector when one of their major competitors (you would know the name) announced a new line obviously based on my client's patent. After four years of (very expensive) litigation, my client "won". Except, they didn't because the big name manufacturer had taken the market share and the settlement of the case involved paying a pretty substantial licensing fee and some penalties—but they still held the market share.

During discovery, emails were found explicitly discussing the benefit of simply infringing, then settling in court. It was an intentional strategy that worked for them. My client's did get some money but the infringers got the long-term business which my client's should have gotten.

This scenario is a bit different from a patent troll situation, but it is—I am told—not unusual.

As I said, usually the inventor wins, as yours did. Right?

Also, in your example, the the Goliath would have taken the same action/business plan independently of how well the patent was written, right?

 

A sad truth, it takes money to fight money.

 

As I said, usually the inventor wins, as yours did. Right?

Also, in your example, the the Goliath would have taken the same action/business plan independently of how well the patent was written, right?

We seem to be talking past each other here. It's probably my fault for not being clear enough but I am just going to bow out of the conversation at this point.

I'll just say the you are correct as far as the low likelihood the TS will need to fight a challenge to his patent if he is granted one, but if jt is valuable—which is a low probability statistically, without even considering the possible content—unless it iw written well gaps will be exploited with the infringer calculating the cost of violating the law against the benefit selling the result.

So, you are not wrong about what you are saying, but we are talking in parallel without crossing.

 

We seem to be talking past each other here. It's probably my fault for not being clear enough but I am just going to bow out of the conversation at this point.

I'll just say the you are correct as far as the low likelihood the TS will need to fight a challenge to his patent if he is granted one, but if jt is valuable—which is a low probability statistically, without even considering the possible content—unless it iw written well gaps will be exploited with the infringer calculating the cost of violating the law against the benefit selling the result.

So, you are not wrong about what you are saying, but we are talking in parallel without crossing.

I don't think we are talking past each other. I understand exactly what you are saying. You just seem to be using examples that prove my point rather than your point.

1) I say inventors usually win patent infringement cases.
- according to your example, where you worked with some inventor against some patent troll, you won. Seems like you say you disagree with me but your example proves otherwise.

2) you said, a large company essentially had a business plan to violate a patent and figured the lawsuit costs of infringement were worth it to them. They paid the fine but walked away with the market share over time.
- i couldn't figure out how any patent could overcome this scenario no matter how well the patent is written.

No need to reply, I'm done too. Quotes attributed to Mark Twain are right.