Judging by this article alone, I'd say "prior art".
>However, the plaintiffs came forward with minimal evidence to support their argument of infringement. They also faced abundant evidence showing that the patents were invalid based on prior art. In other words, there was nothing new in these “inventions” sufficient for a patent.
Comments
Judging by this article alone, I'd say "prior art".
>However, the plaintiffs came forward with minimal evidence to support their argument of infringement. They also faced abundant evidence showing that the patents were invalid based on prior art. In other words, there was nothing new in these “inventions” sufficient for a patent.
Why wasn't the prior art discovered when the patent was granted?
Because the USPTO couldn't give a hoot. They face no negative consequences when they rubber-stamp a bogus patent application.