Oh, so NOW they want to actually review patent applications… for years and years all we heard about was the backlog of patent applications and how they were ‘streamlining’ the process. The USPTO approves patent applications such as patent # US6360693 B1, “Animal Toy.” As you can see here, http://www.google.com/patents/US6360693 this is a patent for a stick.
Alternatively, how about real penalties for frivolous lawsuits including, but not limited to sanctions against the attorneys. As officers of the court the laywers should be held accoutable (read this to mean “send money”).
If you do not know what patent is involved, how can you prove it was violated? Of course the individual patent should be identified, and not just in the demand letter for damages.
Oh, so NOW they want to actually review patent applications… for years and years all we heard about was the backlog of patent applications and how they were ‘streamlining’ the process. The USPTO approves patent applications such as patent # US6360693 B1, “Animal Toy.” As you can see here, http://www.google.com/patents/US6360693 this is a patent for a stick.
Alternatively, how about real penalties for frivolous lawsuits including, but not limited to sanctions against the attorneys. As officers of the court the laywers should be held accoutable (read this to mean “send money”).
If you do not know what patent is involved, how can you prove it was violated? Of course the individual patent should be identified, and not just in the demand letter for damages.