
In the movie, Joy receives some poor advice from attorneys which she fortunately overcomes.
1. Joy relies upon her investor's attorney for a patent search and the analysis of the search results. According to the attorney, there is a third-party patent for a self-wringing mop that might cover Joy's invention and that Joy should pay a royalty to the third-party.
Unfortuntately for Joy, the investor's attorney wasn't a patent attorney and thus wasn't able to perform a patent infringement or patent invalidity analysis.
2. A California patent attorney tells her that because she paid a royalty to the third-party that all of her parts and molds fall under the umbrella of the third-party patent, and that it is impossible to fight it.
First, while paying royalties creates the impression that the Joy's invention may fall under the third-party patent, it does not make it so. People pay royalties for a variety of reasons including because it is easier to pay a royalty than the fight it out in court. Second, it is always possible to fight a case (if you have the resources).
Joy also isn't a patent attorney and during the climax she makes a few statements that while great for a drama are besides the point.
1. She states that the inventor of the third-party patent is not aware of the value of his patent, and hasn't sold or manufactured a product. These factors are irrelevant to the issue of whether patent claims cover an accused product.
2. She states that her mop doesn't bear any similarities to the third-party's mop. This is the wrong comparison. You have to compare the patent claims to the accused product.
- Henry Park
No comments:
Post a Comment