Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Application US20120036028

So basically this is check splitting...

We have been working on a system for the last year and a half that has the same "feature". By advice from our legal counsel, there was nothing novel about it and would not pass the USPTO examination so we didn't pursue it.

Don't a handful of apps already use such a mechanism?

Should we have pursued a patent?

So would this patent be valid?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

Well, you might want to be mindful that what your attorney tells you is privileged so long as both of you protect that privilege. Lots of time and money is sometimes spent defending against demands to divulge opinion of counsel.

Whether you should have filed for a patent is impossible to asnwer here. However, if your patent counsel makes money from filing patent applications, then advice not to file is probably something to take to heart.

The link you provide is for a published patent application. It has been rejected at least once, and it appears that the applicant has amended the claims in view of an obviousness rejection. There is no guarantee that any claims will be allowed, or that they will be allowed without additional limiting amendments.

share|improve this answer
    
Yorick, thank you for answering. I don't quite understand what you mean by... "Well, you might want to be mindful that what your attorney tells you is privileged so long as both of you protect that privilege. Lots of time and money is sometimes spent defending against demands to divulge opinion of counsel." I understand the privileged part but the second sentence eludes me. Not a lawyer by the way. Also, for the fact that they advised not to file, and they make money by filing, shows great character on their behalf. They could have taken my money and filed with an unsatisfactory outcome. –  ftp Jan 16 '13 at 19:16
1  
Did I divulge something I shouldn't have? Just trying to understand. I come from engineering background but not a lawyer and any help would be greatly appreciated. And yes, lawyers do cost a lot, so I understand the monetary reference. :) –  ftp Jan 16 '13 at 19:25
    
Attorney-client privilege allows you to communicate freely with your counsel without having to worry that those communications will be used against you, for example at a patent infringement trial to show that you knew about a patent and infringed anyway (even if you thought it was invalid). patentlyo.com/patent/2006/11/caution_disclos.html –  Yorick Jan 16 '13 at 19:45
    
I see. Thank you for clarifying. –  ftp Jan 16 '13 at 20:12
    
Does this mean, if this patent is granted, and we had the same mechanisim in place, that the comment on the original post, can waive such rights as attorney-client privilage and be used against us? –  ftp Jan 16 '13 at 20:16
show 6 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.