Two Rambus Patents Invalidated By USPTO

First time accepted submitter rnswebx writes "Two patents that chip designer Rambus used to win patent lawsuits against Nvidia, HP, and others have been declared invalid by the USPTO." The Inquirer has a similar story up, with appropriately snarky sub-head.

Comments

Patent question

[j00r0m4nc3r]

If a company is sued by a patent holder and forced to pay licensing fees, and that patent is later invalidated, is that company entitled to reimbursement?

Re:Patent question

[AikonMGB]

Inquiring minds want to know. If the use of said patents was the sole factor in the suit, then I would say, the company is entitled to reimbursement. If there was anything else going on at the time, or if for example it involved two patents and only one patent was invalidated, then I think the case would have to be revisited. IANAPL, this is just wild speculation.

What I want to know, however, is how those patents made it through said suits intact, only to be declared invalid by the USPTO at a later date -- wouldn't, in the course of the suits, the patents get thoroughly vetted by the USPTO, under scrutiny of the court? Or am I applying too much logic and common sense to the patent system?

Aikon-

USPTO

[DinDaddy]

My first thought upon reading this was "They should make Rambus repay the companies that gave them licensing fees based on these." My second was "with treble damages to discourage this shit." My third was "On the other hand, they were just (underhandedly) playing the system as it exists so maybe that's a little unfair". Then I realized the solution. Make the USPTO repay the license fees. That would improve the quality of their patent review really really fast.

In my dreams. It would more likely mean no patent ever got overturned.