<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How Can I Challenge an Invalid Patent?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://patents101.com/2009/06/challenge-invalid-patent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://patents101.com/2009/06/challenge-invalid-patent/</link>
	<description>Patents101, Hyra IP&#039;s Patents Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:37:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clifford D. Hyra</title>
		<link>http://patents101.com/2009/06/challenge-invalid-patent/comment-page-1/#comment-481</link>
		<dc:creator>Clifford D. Hyra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:20:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patents101.com/?p=407#comment-481</guid>
		<description>Chad,

Have you spoken to a patent attorney? I do not know how much experience you have dealing with patents, but it can be quite difficult to interpret patent documents without substantial training and experience. An attorney may not be cheap, but should be able to answer two questions for you:

1) Would your new product infringe the ClearPlay patent you identify? 
2) Is the patent you identify valid in view of the prior art?

To start a re-exam, you need to have some specific prior art that would invalidate (e.g. render obvious) the patent. If you do, re-exam is a viable option, although it sometimes takes multiple years for reexaminations to be resolved.

If you are serious about your product I would recommend first getting an infringement opinion and then, if it appears your product may infringe, think about getting a validity opinion and/or initiating a re-exam of the patent you mention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chad,</p>
<p>Have you spoken to a patent attorney? I do not know how much experience you have dealing with patents, but it can be quite difficult to interpret patent documents without substantial training and experience. An attorney may not be cheap, but should be able to answer two questions for you:</p>
<p>1) Would your new product infringe the ClearPlay patent you identify?<br />
2) Is the patent you identify valid in view of the prior art?</p>
<p>To start a re-exam, you need to have some specific prior art that would invalidate (e.g. render obvious) the patent. If you do, re-exam is a viable option, although it sometimes takes multiple years for reexaminations to be resolved.</p>
<p>If you are serious about your product I would recommend first getting an infringement opinion and then, if it appears your product may infringe, think about getting a validity opinion and/or initiating a re-exam of the patent you mention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad Michael</title>
		<link>http://patents101.com/2009/06/challenge-invalid-patent/comment-page-1/#comment-480</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:18:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patents101.com/?p=407#comment-480</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m considering making an attempt to request a re-examination of the ClearPlay patent number 6,898,799 and possibly other patents they have been awarded. They have essentially patented the idea of fast forwarding and muting by an automated program. I&#039;m quite shocked that the examiner let this through! It seems apparent to me that it couldn&#039;t possibly pass the nonobviousness criterion. I&#039;m a software engineer and have developed a product that is far superior to ClearPlay&#039;s but as I examine the patents they&#039;ve been awarded, it seems that they have it locked down. I&#039;m just curious if you would consider it worth trying, or are my chances so dismal that I might as well cut my losses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m considering making an attempt to request a re-examination of the ClearPlay patent number 6,898,799 and possibly other patents they have been awarded. They have essentially patented the idea of fast forwarding and muting by an automated program. I&#8217;m quite shocked that the examiner let this through! It seems apparent to me that it couldn&#8217;t possibly pass the nonobviousness criterion. I&#8217;m a software engineer and have developed a product that is far superior to ClearPlay&#8217;s but as I examine the patents they&#8217;ve been awarded, it seems that they have it locked down. I&#8217;m just curious if you would consider it worth trying, or are my chances so dismal that I might as well cut my losses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

