SP, funny you should point that out...and you're the only one to point that out.

"If it is the latter does that mean 80% of IPR claims are successful in proving a patent is invalid....That does not sound quite right. 80% of the millions of patents issued by anyone for any reason, when challenged by anyone through an IPR are no good......WOW...I cannot believe that....That's HUGE..."

You better believe it's huge....

I composed a message for BLR last night on that matter, in response to one of his questions. I composed my concern for that large % number issued by a USPTO judge.

Just as I started to post, I killed my material thoughts and said to myself.... what f'n trash this all floats on.

That number signifies to me the USPTO is a worthless pile of sh**. It creates a lot of worthless jobs that approve the patents, where at a later date, after a company has taken its IP to the market...through a higher level of expertise and management, then back peddle to the tune of 80% of invalidity.

80%...????? where's the value in that government sponsored enterprise?

Congress is killing it's constituents....allowing the USPTO to be inept at one level and more stringent at another in playing two sides of the fence.

That statistic aside, I'm not letting it bother me with regard to e.Digitals published claim phrase vs. the challenged prior art claim phrase... as to which carries the broadest limitation. Micron is going to force USPTO to challenge the federal courts claims construction ruling on matters of claim limitation.

e.Digital is not standing alone on the IPR matter.

doni