Halcyon sueing OxyCheq, US Divers and others?

[OneBrightGator]

caveseeker7,

Those are the legal issues in the case:
No, the patents were not granted properly
Yes, they are being infringed upon, actually by most every company that manufacturers scuba equipment.

The other issues I see in the case are is the suit ethical and why the defendants listed, which I've covered previously in this thread.

Ben

 

[SubMariner]

Whoa, people... cool down.

If I could tap this stuff I could heat my house for a month in the dead of winter.

Lighten up, eh?!

Just a request from one of your friendly neighbourhood Mods.

 

[OneBrightGator]

The fact of the matter is, no one here knows anything more than the bare allegations of the complaints and his or her subjective interpretation of the claims made in the patents. At least I haven't seen anything about the factual basis for the claims or defenses raised in the suit; just the standard Chicken Little cries of "the sky is falling."

Bare allegations? are we supposed to look for clothed allegations? maybe furry ones. Allegations are simply what they are, they're listed in the suit, nothing more, they aren't secretly hidden somewhere.

There's a lot more to a patent suit than reading the complaint and looking at the patents. I've litigated a couple patents. The complaint tells you jack squat--especially the one jonnythan posted. Even the claims in the patent don't tell you what other products will necessarily infringe. The courts have an entire procedure for determining the scope of the claims after substantial discovery and expert testimony.

That's all part of the issue, the complaint doesn't specifically list what products violate the patent, the Carleigh Rae Corp. doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on to file the complaint, but no one crying wolf about jumping to conclusions has had an issue with jumping to the conclusion that the suit is legit... odd.

Ben

 

[Northeastwrecks]

As a matter of law, the Complaint does not need to allege which products infringe the patents-in-suit. Its actually somewhat unusual to do so.

As another matter of law, patents are presumed valid. They can be invalidated only by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard than the traditional civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence.

As still another matter of law, the plaintiff has an affirmative duty to conduct an investigation into the basis for its infringement claims prior to filing an infringement suit. However, the details of the investigation do not need to be set forth in the Complaint.

Finally, an infringement analysis is a two step process. First, the Court construes the claims of the patent-in-suit by examining the claims, the specification and the intrinsic evidence of record, particularly including the prosecution history. Construing claims is a matter of law that is done by the Court.

Second, the properly construed claims are compared to the accused device (which are usually identified in pleadings other than the Complaint) to determine whether infringement exists, either directly or under the so-called Doctrine of Equivalents.

In other words, this process is far more complex than a cursory reading of the patents-in-suit and the Complaint.

 

[Genesis]

OBG, this is what you get when everything becomes relative.

Tends to happen sometmie around the point where you add "JD" to your name..... unfortunately.

 

[scubasean]

That's all part of the issue, the complaint doesn't specifically list what products violate the patent, the Carleigh Rae Corp. doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on to file the complaint, but no one crying wolf about jumping to conclusions has had an issue with jumping to the conclusion that the suit is legit... odd.

Ben

I'm not clear as to why you believe the suit isn't legit...The comment above seems to suggest that your beef is that you think that the complaint needs more specificity...but I wonder how many legal complaints you've read...

Also, are you this outspoken about other lawsuits filed that have the same issue? Or does this one strike you as special?

 

[OneBrightGator]

I'm not clear as to why you believe the suit isn't legit...The comment above seems to suggest that your beef is that you think that the complaint needs more specificity...but I wonder how many legal complaints you've read...

Also, are you this outspoken about other lawsuits filed that have the same issue? Or does this one strike you as special?

sigh... the patents aren't legit, the reasons for filing the suit are slimey, a one-two combination in my book.

I don't stay tuned to every new lawsuit filed, this one came to my attention and I have issue with it.

Ben

 

[AzAtty]

No, this is what you get when people who have no clue about patent enforcement or federal court procedures in general try to make authoritative statements about whether a patent suit has merit.

Complaints are not drafted to provide comprehensive information to, and entertainment for, the public. A complaint serves two limited purposes: (1) to initiate suit and (2) to provide the defendant with a general notice for what he is being sued. If the defendants thought the complaint was legally insufficient, they would have filed a motion for a more definite statement or even a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. But none was filed within the time allowed.

NEWrecks is dead on with his comments. Maybe that's because he litigates intellectual property issues for a living and knows how it's done. To suggest that anyone can make an authoritative evaluation of the merit of a suit merely on a complaint is sheer idiocy. But that shouldn't prevent the peasants from concluding there's a monster in the castle on the hill, as this thread has so elegantly demonstrated.

 

[AzAtty]

sigh... the patents aren't legit, it.

Ben

Tell us, Ben, how the patents aren't legitimate. As NEWrecks noted, an issued patent is presumed to be valid, and that's a strong presumption. Specific references to the U.S. Code sections governing issuance of patents would be helpful. Enlighten us.

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Tell us, Ben, how the patents aren't legitimate. As NEWrecks noted, an issued patent is presumed to be valid, and that's a strong presumption. Specific references to the U.S. Code sections governing issuance of patents would be helpful. Enlighten us.

A Markman claims construction wouldn't hurt either. But good luck.