282 as a defense to an infringement action, an alleged infringer must prove the patent invalid by clear and convincing evidence.
But there was good news for alleged infringers as well: in affirming the existing standard of proof, the Court stated its approval of a jury instruction that may make some patents easier to invalidate.
ESCORT Inc., and Beltronics Inc., the industry leaders of radar detection technology, were vindicated recently as a federal jury sided with them in invalidating several key radar detector patent claims asserted against the companies, Case No. Equally as noteworthy, is the jury's finding that there was no willful infringement on ESCORTs part.
The jury verdict came after an 11-day trial in which ESCORT and Beltronics were accused of infringing claims of U. In fact, it was the work of Steven Orr (an employee of ESCORT's predecessor Cincinnati Microwave) that the jury latched onto in invalidating several of the key patent claims.
The company is headquartered in West Chester, Ohio, with its principal manufacturing facility located in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court affirmed the long-standing rule that in asserting patent invalidity under 35 U. This result was good news for patent owners, who faced the possibility that the Court would reduce the standard of proof for invalidating a patent.
In , Microsoft challenged the "clear and convincing" standard, arguing that the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard should be used to overcome the presumption of patent validity created in section 282.
Microsoft further argued that, even if the traditional "clear and convincing" evidence standard were applied to prior art that had been considered by the patent office during examination, the lower "preponderance of the evidence" should be applied to new prior art that is, prior art not previously considered by the patent office in granting the patent.
Although the Court refused to reduce the standard of proof for invalidating a patent, the Court approved a jury instruction that may make patents easier to invalidate when the alleged infringer presents new prior art to the jury.Although we are very pleased with the outcome, the amount of time and resources necessary to defend our position was disheartening. is the leading manufacturer of high-performance radar and laser detectors, the patented ESCORT Live™ real-time ticket protection network, commercial fleet ESCORT Smart Office™ mobile PC, ESCORT Mobile TV™, Guardian Alert reverse obstacle detection systems, Entourage GPS-enabled navigation and tracking products, ESCORT Quick Start™ and other Drive Smarter products.We would have much rather spent those resources on providing jobs to 20 more full time employees and investing with our business partners in new growth opportunities." ESCORT is pleased the jury provided such a favorable verdict and will continue to vigorously defend itself, while working to provide customers with the best products in the industry. ESCORT manufactures products under the ESCORT, PASSPORT, REDLINE, SOLO, Vector and BELTRONICS brands.Accordingly, a proper analysis of whether a use constitutes a public use has always involved an inquiry into, first, whether the invention was “ready for patenting,” and secondly, whether the use was in fact public or not. Such would-be prior art, however, is not limited to that published or otherwise emanating from others but also includes time bars such as the public use bar. Under the AIA, a public use may be invalidating whether it occurred within or outside the United States, with a similar but weaker one year grace period applying. Since the AIA uses similar language defining invalidating public use it can be expected that pre-AIA case law and principles will remain relevant, but time shifted to reflect the first to file realities of the AIA. For example, proof of reduction to practice prior to the alleged public use is often relied upon by patent challengers in an effort to establish that the invention was ready for patenting at the time of the use. Patent applications are typically filed early on in the process of developing and commercializing a pharmaceutical drug product.Holding that Congress decided the issue when it adopted the Patent Act of 1952, the Court confirmed that patent invalidity must be proved by “clear and convincing” evidence, even where the Patent Office did not consider the allegedly invalidating prior art.But consistent with accepted practice, the Court held that “new evidence supporting an invalidity defense may ‘carry more weight’ … ESCORT and Beltronics presented "clear and convincing" evidence that several key patent claims are invalid based on prior art."Last month in Boise, Idaho, I had the opportunity to witness, first hand, the efforts of Mr. Dowler," said John Larson President and CEO of ESCORT. They use their easy access to the patent office and legal system to exert as much pressure as possible on businesses in hopes of receiving a large settlement.Second, in rejecting the argument that a lower standard of proof should be applied when considering prior art that was not before the patent office, the Court held that nothing in section 282's text suggested that Congress intended to adopt a standard of proof that would rise and fall with the facts of each case.The Court acknowledged that there were strong policy arguments both for and against a strong presumption of validity, but stated that it was in no position to judge the comparative force of those policy arguments.