Home | Subscribe | Post a Job | Advertise | Contact
« Monsanto wins $1b verdict on RoundUp Ready Seed Patent |
| Loser Pays System Introduced in Congress »
File Attachment: MonsantoJuryVerdict.pdf (140 KB)
Posted on Aug 08, 2012 at 11:15 PM | Permalink
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This link doesn't seem to be working.
Fan in UK |
Aug 09, 2012 at 12:44 AM
I was excited to type "First!" Shouldn't you be watching Olympics Fan? Link still isn't working.
Jonathan Stroud |
Aug 09, 2012 at 06:16 AM
Fixed it. Thanks.
Dennis Crouch |
Aug 09, 2012 at 08:53 AM
Who represented these parties?
bad joke ahead |
Aug 09, 2012 at 09:27 AM
But seeds aren't patentable.
Mechanical devices aren't patentable.
Electrical circuits aren't patentable.
Trash the whole thing and let everybody steal what they want,because the internet wants to be FREEEEEEEEE !
software isn't patenable |
Aug 09, 2012 at 09:33 AM
Do we really think that the jury gave due consideration to every single dependent claim?
David Stein |
Aug 09, 2012 at 09:48 AM
Today: "Docket Text ORDER: Motion to Clarify 1571 is GRANTED. The Clerk's Judgment 1569 is not a Final Appealable Judgment in view of the remaining issues for the Court to decide. Once any outstanding claims are ruled by this Court, a Final Appealable Judgment shall issue. So Ordered by Judge E. Richard Webber. (BABS) (Entered: 08/08/2012)"
Aug 09, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Anyone know the firms representing each side?
Aug 09, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Probably not. As I understand it, juries decide who should win and then fill out the jury form accordingly.
If we really wanted the jury to consider the dependent claims, the claim language should be on the jury form.
Non Sequitur II |
Aug 09, 2012 at 12:17 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Jason Rantanen, Associate ProfessorUniversity of IowaCollege of LawSSRN Articles
Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics