If NEA's lawyers can mount a case to the effect that Eagleview's patented invention fails the non-obvious provision of Section 103 of Title 35 of the United States Code, the case would be won for NEA.
My background includes: low levels of IT and GISs, schoolboy understanding of trigonometry and its use via triangulation in mapping and surveying; some knowledge of what architects, quantity surveyors and surveyors do for a living; and an idea of roofing in the USA, which because of climate is a very different sector to what it is in Australia. With that shallow background, to me what Eagleview has patented would have been obvious to, as Section 103 puts it, a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. I am curious to see if the defence is going to take that path.
I gained the impression when I first looked at the Eagleview-Verisk matter that Verisk hand handled its defence very badly, but not knowing the facts, and not being qualified to comment, I did not post the view that I had written in draft. A few minutes ago, I read https://www.bressler.com/publication-how-to-really-lose-a-patent-infringement-case. It is very interesting.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- NEA
- Ann: FY21 preliminary results, exceeds recently upgraded guidance
Ann: FY21 preliminary results, exceeds recently upgraded guidance, page-83
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 30 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add NEA (ASX) to my watchlist
Currently unlisted public company.
The Watchlist
LPM
LITHIUM PLUS MINERALS LTD.
Simon Kidston, Non--Executive Director
Simon Kidston
Non--Executive Director
SPONSORED BY The Market Online