RunwayFinder to fight the FlightPrep patent | Hacker News Reader

RunwayFinder to fight the FlightPrep patent

blog.runwayfinder.com

37 pointssoitgoes12 comments

I urge that guy to find a patent attorney. It can be very dangerous to represent yourself in such a case. It is usually dangerous to represent yourself, but for patent cases it is 10 times more dangerous, because:

(1) patent law is very complex. Even ordinary lawyers usually will not litigate patent cases unless they specialize in patent law only. Insurance companies will usually not insure attorneys that do not specialize in patent law for patent work.

(2) damages for patent cases can be very large. Damages can often break a company.

I read the post and he says some things that are simply wrong. For example the following statement:

"In order to be infringing on a patent, a person or entity must be infringing on every one of the claims that are linked together. Thus, an infringement would need to be on all of claims 1-10, or all of claims 11-20, or all of claims 21-23 for this patent."

is, in my humble opinion, wrong wrong worng!!! If you hang your hopes on the above you will have a nasty surprise waiting for you.

By the way, I am a patent attorney, but none of the above is legal advice. Just some friendly advice to get a lawyer.

Why is it wrong wrong wrong? What's the relevant law on linked claims?

Generally, you infringe a patent if you infringe a single claim. There is no such term as "linked claims." There is something called a dependent claim, which is a claim that references another claim in a specific way. A dependent claim includes all the language of the claims it depends on.

Thus, if claim 5 says something like, "The system of claim 3, wherein" and claim 3 says something like "The system of claim 1, wherein" then claim 5 will probably be deemed to include all the language of claims 3 and 1. However, claim 1 does not necessarily include claims 3 and 5 and you can infringe claim 1, even if your system does not have any of the elements listed in claims 3 and 5.

OTOH, if you don't infringe claim 1, you can't infringe claims 3 and 5. I think that's what he was getting at, even if he didn't express it correctly.

Absolutely get an attorney if you're going to fight it. And hint #2: don't blog about your approach to the case, at least until after it's settled, and assuming the settlement doesn't include nondisclosure.

You should definitely get an attorney if you can at all afford it.

But either way, I appreciate you taking up this fight. These types of patent suits are particularly obnoxious when brought to bear on early-stage entrepreneurs, where they are clearly not protecting innovation, but rather stifling it. Each person willing to fight brings us a step closer to a patent-free world.

Please post a way for us to donate money to fund your fight. And also potentially contact a non-profit to help (does the EFF take up patent disputes?)

If the Rf duder is reading this, feel free to contact me. IANAL but I know thousands because I own the most popular patent litigation news service.

priorsmart - very clever name.

Thanks, credit to my wife.

Wasn't this guy going to simply shut the company down? I agree that he should get a patent attorney if he can afford one, but if he can't, I don't see how this is any worse than just shutting down [1]. What does he have to lose?

1. This assumes that he has a limited-liability company of some kind and has run it correctly to avoid them piercing the veil.

If a single person holds all positions in the LLC, i.e. closely held, that veil is easily pierced as they can say 'you' committed the negligence as the GM of the company and the company is just a tax vehicle. In this case, a closely held LLC or S-Corp provides very little liability protection, and his E&O insurance will reflect that.

The linked claims are called dependent claims. In order to be infringing on a patent, a person or entity must be infringing on every one of the claims that are linked together. Thus, an infringement would need to be on all of claims 1-10, or all of claims 11-20, or all of claims 21-23 for this patent.

The claims that refer back to 1, 11, and 21 are included in case claims 1, 11, and 21 are dismissed.

Say claim 1 is found invalid, and claim 2 depends on claim 1. If claim 2 is held to be valid and you're found to be infringing claim 2, you're hosed regardless of whether you infringe any other claims besides 2.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com