Reasons for invalidating a patent
Cam 2cam rooms no credit card needed
In addition, i4i strongly argued that the Court should use the “clear and convincing evidence” standard instead of the “by a preponderance of the evidence” standard supported by Microsoft.The Court acknowledged that the text of the statute itself, the Patent Act of 1952, establishes no particular standard of proof.However, the Court focused on Radio Corporation of America (RCA) v. The RCA case featured a dispute among various inventors about who had first invented a particular technology.The Supreme Court Justices affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision and were unanimous in their 8-0 decision in which they rejected Microsoft’s challenge to the Federal Circuit precedent and held that “an alleged infringer must show by clear and convincing evidence that the patent it is accused of infringing is invalid.” At issue in the case was whether the invalidity defense provided for in the Patent Act of 1952 must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.” As Lisa Mc Elroy explains on SCOTUSblog, the significant question in the case was what type of burden of proof applies when a party claims a patent is invalid.
Deputy Solicitor General Tom Hungar, advocating for Microsoft, claimed broadly that the preponderance standard applies for all challenges to patent validity.
i4i, patent, Patent Act, Patent Act of 1952, patent infringement, Patent Litigation, patents, SCOTUS, US Patent No.