I’m sure a 3rd party isn’t included in that. The product itself infringes on a patent and can only be sold once to a third party. NOTE: it does not say reseller anywhere in that definition.
Also “makes, uses, offers to sell or sells” could be seen as a list of requirements that all need to be done. For example if I use an iPhone that infringes on a patent am I personally liable for compensation? According to you and your definition I am!
That is probably eastern district.Southern Texas and patent infringement... isn’t this the same district that Uniloc uses to troll money out of businesses?
You can be pretty sure but you’d be wrong. If you sell an infringing product and you are not licensed you infringe. Period.
[doublepost=1509401984][/doublepost]
Again, infringement is allegedly ongoing. So Apple is aware of the patent NOW and so sales from today onward are a different story.
I’m not defending anything. I’m pointing out what the law is. A lot of people state their legal opinions on here and it’s clear they aren’t familiar with patent law, so I’m pointing out where they are wrong. My only interest is in encouraging a correct understanding of title 35 of the u.s. code.You seem to be defending this action quite hard? What is your interest?
Anyway as you say this is all 'allegedly' at this stage. it may turn out that August are not even infringing on this 'patent', patent could get invalidated or overturned. Whilst you did use the word 'allegedly', the tone of your posts seem to imply that you feel that the infringement is cut & dry.
Yep. He should really be suing Assa Abloy (the new owners of August) instead of Apple.The lawsuit is rather humorous given that it should probably be targeted at August Smart Lock, so we'll see how far this one goes before getting tossed out.
He is an expert.You seem to be defending this action quite hard? What is your interest?
Anyway as you say this is all 'allegedly' at this stage. it may turn out that August are not even infringing on this 'patent', patent could get invalidated or overturned. Whilst you did use the word 'allegedly', the tone of your posts seem to imply that you feel that the infringement is cut & dry.