Re:Ask HN: Just found a patent covering my project, anything...
by dctoedt on Thursday June 03, 2010 @01:00PM
(#1401830)
Be sure to read the claims of the patent, carefully.
You can think of the words and phrases in a given claim as the elements of an AND statement (or the input leads to an AND gate): If the claim returns TRUE when what you do is used as inputs, then that claim is infringed.
The different claims in a patent are like the input leads to an OR gate: It only takes one infringed claim to make you liable.
A claim can be infringed, even if Claim Element X is missing, if X is deemed present by an "equivalent." The analysis there can be complicated, so I won't go into it.
Concerning patent validity, a patent is presumed valid; the burden is on the challenger to prove invalidity. This has to be done claim by claim.
The courts have held -- wrongly, in my view, but there you go -- that proof of invalidity requires clear and convincing evidence, not just a preponderance of the evidence.
Concerning open-sourcing, kits, etc.: Someone who intentionally induces infringement by another can be liable for the other person's infringement. There's also the concept of contributory infringement, which I won't go into here.
There's no fair-use doctrine in patent law the way there is in copyright law. (Some people have argued for a fair-use exception for experimental scientific research; I don't recall offhand whether this is an established doctrine, but I don't think it is.)
Usual disclaimer: Don't rely on this as a substitute for legal advice, YMMV, etc., etc.
You can think of the words and phrases in a given claim as the elements of an AND statement (or the input leads to an AND gate): If the claim returns TRUE when what you do is used as inputs, then that claim is infringed.
The different claims in a patent are like the input leads to an OR gate: It only takes one infringed claim to make you liable.
A claim can be infringed, even if Claim Element X is missing, if X is deemed present by an "equivalent." The analysis there can be complicated, so I won't go into it.
Concerning patent validity, a patent is presumed valid; the burden is on the challenger to prove invalidity. This has to be done claim by claim.
The courts have held -- wrongly, in my view, but there you go -- that proof of invalidity requires clear and convincing evidence, not just a preponderance of the evidence.
Concerning open-sourcing, kits, etc.: Someone who intentionally induces infringement by another can be liable for the other person's infringement. There's also the concept of contributory infringement, which I won't go into here.
There's no fair-use doctrine in patent law the way there is in copyright law. (Some people have argued for a fair-use exception for experimental scientific research; I don't recall offhand whether this is an established doctrine, but I don't think it is.)
Usual disclaimer: Don't rely on this as a substitute for legal advice, YMMV, etc., etc.
Good luck.