You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
With a jury? Sure. It depends on what exactly he said, what it was in response to, and what else he might have said. Taken in context, was he actually saying that he didn't think he rightfully - legally - was the inventor or a joint inventor? If so, then that could influence a jury's finding of fact. It perhaps shouldn't, not unless it was demonstrated that Mr. Siva was qualified to testify as to ownership rather than just to what happened. But what happens often isn't what should happen.
That said, even if the jury finds the patent in question valid, Apple has argued that the patent is unenforceable based on inequitable conduct. That's something which would, if necessary, be decided later - by the judge I believe. I think the judge would be less likely to be influenced by Mr. Siva's legal conclusions about inventorship than a jury would.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
If the “idea” resulted in at least one claim, then he is an inventor. Idea is a vague term. You cannot patent the solution that a mouse trap achieves as you state, but you can patent the actual implementation ergo thousands of mouse trap patents.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
That’s not the issue here. If a patent is improperly or deceptively credited, it could invalidate the patent.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
That’s not the issue here. If a patent is improperly or deceptively credited, it could invalidate the patent.
Well of course it could. Siva's testimony is certainly part of that issue or Apple would not have subpoenaed him.
I'm no friend of Qualcomm, but accepting as fact everything their opponent's lawyer has to say? Of course not. Part of a lawyer's job is introducing doubt, whether it's an honest argument or not. Their obligation is to the client.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
That’s not the issue here. If a patent is improperly or deceptively credited, it could invalidate the patent.
Well of course it could. Siva's testimony is certainly part of that issue or Apple would not have subpoenaed him.
The issue is attribution. The larger issue is Apple wants the patent invalidated and they’ll do everything in their power to do that if it’s possible.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
That’s not the issue here. If a patent is improperly or deceptively credited, it could invalidate the patent.
Well of course it could. Siva's testimony is certainly part of that issue or Apple would not have subpoenaed him.
The issue is attribution. The larger issue is Apple wants the patent invalidated and they’ll do everything in their power to do that if it’s possible.
The jury will be asked to make a validity determination. That's one of the reasons Mr. Siva's (supposed) inventorship is relevant. It's one reason why the patent might be determined to be invalid.
Mr. Siva's inventorship is also relevant because Apple is arguing that the patent isn't enforceable due to inequitable conduct.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
That’s not the issue here. If a patent is improperly or deceptively credited, it could invalidate the patent.
Well of course it could. Siva's testimony is certainly part of that issue or Apple would not have subpoenaed him.
The issue is attribution. The larger issue is Apple wants the patent invalidated and they’ll do everything in their power to do that if it’s possible.
As they should,
but consider that “A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts... a lawyer does not necessarily affirm or vouch for the truthfulness of representations made by the client in the agreement or document."
So just because an attorney said it. and that applies to both sides...
but consider that “A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts... a lawyer does not necessarily affirm or vouch for the truthfulness of representations made by the client in the agreement or document."
So just because an attorney said it. and that applies to both sides...
any Lawyer missing things out during the discovery phase of a civil case will be in hot water with the Judge and their Bar Association. That's why one side often buries the 'smoking gun' deep in a mountain of data. Lawyers are required to disclose all the facts that they have but they are not required to tell the other side what those facts are or where they are disclosed. As long as both sides have all the facts that are presented at trial then if is not one sides fault if the other side does not find the smoking gun.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
That’s not the issue here. If a patent is improperly or deceptively credited, it could invalidate the patent.
Well of course it could. Siva's testimony is certainly part of that issue or Apple would not have subpoenaed him.
The issue is attribution. The larger issue is Apple wants the patent invalidated and they’ll do everything in their power to do that if it’s possible.
As they should,
but consider that “A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts... a lawyer does not necessarily affirm or vouch for the truthfulness of representations made by the client in the agreement or document."
So just because an attorney said it. and that applies to both sides...
Don’t even get me started on the problem with lawyers.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
That’s not the issue here. If a patent is improperly or deceptively credited, it could invalidate the patent.
Well of course it could. Siva's testimony is certainly part of that issue or Apple would not have subpoenaed him.
The issue is attribution. The larger issue is Apple wants the patent invalidated and they’ll do everything in their power to do that if it’s possible.
As they should,
but consider that “A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts... a lawyer does not necessarily affirm or vouch for the truthfulness of representations made by the client in the agreement or document."
So just because an attorney said it. and that applies to both sides...
Don’t even get me started on the problem with lawyers.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
That’s not the issue here. If a patent is improperly or deceptively credited, it could invalidate the patent.
Well of course it could. Siva's testimony is certainly part of that issue or Apple would not have subpoenaed him.
The issue is attribution. The larger issue is Apple wants the patent invalidated and they’ll do everything in their power to do that if it’s possible.
As they should,
but consider that “A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts... a lawyer does not necessarily affirm or vouch for the truthfulness of representations made by the client in the agreement or document."
So just because an attorney said it. and that applies to both sides...
Don’t even get me started on the problem with lawyers.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the way in which the idea is implemented.
Unless the star witness detailed his "idea" step by step and documented it, neither him nor Apple can claim to have any patent right in it.
This is Intellectual Property 101.
MC AppleFanBoy
You can't patent a generic idea like... A car that can fly to the moon.
But patents are, essentially, ideas. How specific they need to be when it comes to how the invention works depends in part on the nature of the invention. At core a patent protects the combination of elements (which may be many or few) which are specified in the patent claims.
In this case Apple asserted that Mr. Siva conceived of specific elements (which Apple specifically referred to) of the asserted patent claims. If that's true, then he likely is rightfully the inventor or a joint inventor.
So if he himself says he is not one of the inventors then the presumption would be that while he may have had some ideas they did not extend into deriving a method(s) to put those ideas into practice. As an engineer he would understand the difference between one and the other.
See my post in response to your own.
As it is, the presumption is that he isn't an inventor with regard to the patent in question. The burden is on Apple to demonstrate that he is. But his own belief on that issue isn't (or shouldn't be) what's important. He's surely not being offered as an expert on inventorship.
The issue of inventorship can be tricky to sort out. Having done a lot of work on an invention, or a patent application, doesn't make one an inventor. But, at the same time, a simple, casual - happened in an instant - contribution can make one an inventor. It's about conception. Did you conceive the invention? That doesn't mean... did you figure out every aspect of it, or how to put it in practice, or how to describe it for patent application purposes. And, of course, patented inventions can have many aspects to them - i.e., many elements to the claims. So one doesn't have to conceive of every element of a claim to rightfully be an inventor. It's more like... did you conceive of any of the novel and non-obvious elements?
It certainly does not help Apple's argument that Siva, and by extension Apple, should be considered to share "ownership" of the patent rights in question.
That’s not the issue here. If a patent is improperly or deceptively credited, it could invalidate the patent.
Well of course it could. Siva's testimony is certainly part of that issue or Apple would not have subpoenaed him.
The issue is attribution. The larger issue is Apple wants the patent invalidated and they’ll do everything in their power to do that if it’s possible.
As they should,
but consider that “A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts... a lawyer does not necessarily affirm or vouch for the truthfulness of representations made by the client in the agreement or document."
So just because an attorney said it. and that applies to both sides...
Don’t even get me started on the problem with lawyers.
Until you need one.
By the time you are in a position of needing a lawyer, you have already lost.
FWIW quoting: “I don’t think I’m claiming to be an inventor" said Siva in court testimony.... As a long-time engineer I would assume he knows the difference.
Can you point me to where this quote comes from? I'd like to see the line of questioning that lead to that quote. I'm trying to understand the context.
I've now read some of the deposition Mr. SIva gave in the ITC case and it isn't consistent with him thinking he isn't a legitimate inventor for the patent in question. I'm wondering if his answer was more... I'm not claiming I'm an inventor on this patent, I'm not sure, I haven't read the claims, I'm not a lawyer... and less... I don't think I'm an inventor on this patent.
Comments
That said, even if the jury finds the patent in question valid, Apple has argued that the patent is unenforceable based on inequitable conduct. That's something which would, if necessary, be decided later - by the judge I believe. I think the judge would be less likely to be influenced by Mr. Siva's legal conclusions about inventorship than a jury would.
I'm no friend of Qualcomm, but accepting as fact everything their opponent's lawyer has to say? Of course not. Part of a lawyer's job is introducing doubt, whether it's an honest argument or not. Their obligation is to the client.
Mr. Siva's inventorship is also relevant because Apple is arguing that the patent isn't enforceable due to inequitable conduct.
but consider that “A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts... a lawyer does not necessarily affirm or vouch for the truthfulness of representations made by the client in the agreement or document."
So just because an attorney said it. and that applies to both sides...
I've now read some of the deposition Mr. SIva gave in the ITC case and it isn't consistent with him thinking he isn't a legitimate inventor for the patent in question. I'm wondering if his answer was more... I'm not claiming I'm an inventor on this patent, I'm not sure, I haven't read the claims, I'm not a lawyer... and less... I don't think I'm an inventor on this patent.