Hacker News Reader

This seems like a pretty big deal - not only did the patent troll lose the case, he lost his patents.

I wonder on what grounds the jury found the patents invalid. Was it a technicality, or prior art or obviousness?

This could significantly raise the risk (cost) of being a patent troll since the pressure to settle out of court is now, at least to a higher degree than previously, on the plaintiffs.

View on HN

Judging by this article alone, I'd say "prior art".

>However, the plaintiffs came forward with minimal evidence to support their argument of infringement. They also faced abundant evidence showing that the patents were invalid based on prior art. In other words, there was nothing new in these “inventions” sufficient for a patent.

Why wasn't the prior art discovered when the patent was granted?

Because the USPTO couldn't give a hoot. They face no negative consequences when they rubber-stamp a bogus patent application.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com