This is the one case being argued today that will probably get the least coverage.
1 posted on
10/07/2019 8:47:31 AM PDT by
PghBaldy
To: PghBaldy
But it now has Two replies.
2 posted on
10/07/2019 8:50:37 AM PDT by
Scrambler Bob
(This is not /s. It is just as viable as any MSM 'information', maybe more so!)
To: PghBaldy
Interested, but I have no idea what they’re talking about.
Are they saying that an applicant who challenges a decision in civil court must pay legal bills when the patent office is defendant? Is this the way it’s always been or was this instituted recently.
Help, I don’t speak lawyer.
3 posted on
10/07/2019 9:03:38 AM PDT by
tsomer
To: PghBaldy
SCOTUS hates American inventors and always
lets the USPTO attorneys lie, lie, lie.
4 posted on
10/07/2019 9:06:56 AM PDT by
Diogenesis
( WWG1WGA)
To: PghBaldy
Please correct me.
There are idle lawyers everywhere searching, looking for more money to steal. This just says when you try to steal using the excuse of a patent infringement case as your excuse, then you don’t get as much.
5 posted on
10/07/2019 9:09:14 AM PDT by
BDParrish
( One representative for every 30,000 persons!)
To: PghBaldy
Justice is neither speedy not free for most people, unless they are the supported by some grievance lawfare group. A small inventor never is.
To: PghBaldy
The transcript for oral arguments for this case can be found
HERE8 posted on
10/07/2019 12:39:32 PM PDT by
zeugma
(I sure wish I lived in a country where the rule of law actually applied to those in power.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson