Oh, good to see a dedicated thread up now. I hope it’ll be updated for those of us not doing facebook…interested to follow along.
I hope everyone doesn’t get pitchfork riled up about this because there’s clearly a lot more to it than is being bandied about (or that has been bandied about for several years now). I really don’t like it any more than anyone else does, but so far the points I’m seeing mentioned aren’t necessarily the crux of the matter, but this is really stuff to discuss with experienced patent attorneys first, then experienced patent litigators second.
copypasta my comment from one of the other threads where pirateo40 posted:
“Ok. Well…there’s a whole lot to this stuff and it would take digging into the application and award/examiner’s opinion and such. It’s been awhile since I looked at this and I’m not IP expert but my understanding was that it was the sale-in-combination thing that he got. Not the invention or use of the lenses. This is where legit and experienced patent attorneys are worth their weight in gold. Not just someone experienced in applications and who knows the system, but those who have been through litigating in both the federal system (where the cases generally go) and in the patent system when it comes to challenging validation and such. A lot of “regular” attorneys even if they’re experienced in the usual state or county level courts will get in over their heads in federal court, let alone the separate world of patent law. If it’s not been done, I would absolutely meet with one or more patent attorneys to get their take on this…give them all the information you have but you still may not get too far without hiring them to start the deeper dive into the opinion and details.
I don’t think this guy fits into the “troll” category but I definitely understand where you (and all of us that have been cheesed by this nonsense) are coming from. Unless there was really some gross error by the examiner or other technicalities afterwards by the holder/defender, it’s extremely difficult to get things undone, if it’s feasible at all. If there is standing and an avenue, it’s likely to drag on for a few years at least.
I’ve read through I think three of his previous suits, and certainly noticed the shift in products in the marketplace over the last 2-3 years. I’ve wondered if he’s pursuing the many little Chinese sellers on amazon and ebay…there seem to be tons of “infringing” lights still being sold and advertised. That’s not an easy route to pursue, though, and he’s doing what he should with the easy-pickings sellers here domestically (I’m not crazy about that “aggressively defend” part of patent law but it’s a necessary and somewhat understandable requirement). When I see sellers like Convoy and Sofirn and Lumintop honoring the law here whether that’s on amazon or aliexpress and not allowing shipment of those lights to this country, it gives me a good-but-still-irritated feeling…but then you see all these others just sort of flipping him/us the bird and that’s equally irritating.
Anyway…it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. I’d certainly like this to disappear but that decision will be an educated one in a realm above my pay grade. :)”
One additional friendly note….maybe be a little cautious with the words used and whether any words are used at all in public forums. Given his history and given litigation in general, especially once it is in motion, some things that we might consider free speech or harmless speech can easily be used/misused/twisted around in ways that are not in your favor, and believe me, once a party’s online presence is known, people will be observing regularly.