Inventor forced to close company over patent right


http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/01/timeline-case-between-mobilestats-and-mindef/

The above link shows the timeline of what happened between MobileStats and MINDEF

Interesting.

The thing is, Mobilestats claims they dropped their patent infringement claim due to lack of financial resources. But is it also just as possible that they eventually figured their case wasn't strong enough to pursue it further and decided to cut their losses? Otherwise, it's hard to understand why they didn't show up in court to defend themselves against mindef's subsequent counterclaim? If the implication was that the patent would be revoked due to the no-show, that sounds like something you wouldn't want to miss if you strongly believed your patent was valid...

MobileStats dropped claims due to lack of financial resources
2014.01
Dr. Mak and Dr. Ting decided to drop its claim on patent infringement after receiving the counter offer by MINDEF as they do not have the financial resources to carry on.

The High Court granted in chambers MobileStats' application to discontinue its suit and allowed Mindef's counterclaim to seek a court order to revoke MobileStats' patent.

As MobileStats did not turn up in court for the hearing to defend their case, the High court granted MINDEF's counterclaim to seek a court order to revoke MobileStats' patent.
 

Last edited:
The thing is, Mobilestats claims they dropped their patent infringement claim due to lack of financial resources. But is it also just as possible that they eventually figured their case wasn't strong enough to pursue it further and decided to cut their losses? Otherwise, it's hard to understand why they didn't show up in court to defend themselves against mindef's subsequent counterclaim? If the implication was that the patent would be revoked due to the no-show, that sounds like something you wouldn't want to miss if you strongly believed your patent was valid...

Looking at the situation so far, I have 2 things in my mind right now:

1) If their case is not "strong" enough to begin with, why wait for years? No.. Why did they start it in the first place?

2) BUT, if lack of financial resources is really the problem, then how will small inventors defend their IPs against infringement by big corporations? For example, in criminal cases, if the accused doesn't have financial resources to appoint a lawyer, he/she will be provided a state lawyer, am I correct? Is it the same for patent infringements cases?
 

Anyone has pointers to the original MobileStats patent? Let's examine it...
 

Thanks UncleFai for the link to the US patent.

Looking at the diagrams & reading the text, I personally feel it is a bit too generic - anyone could have come up with the idea, especially during war time - but then again, if Apple's rounded corner design can be patented (:sweat:), then I guess that mobile-first aid post is acceptable.
 

2) BUT, if lack of financial resources is really the problem, then how will small inventors defend their IPs against infringement by big corporations? For example, in criminal cases, if the accused doesn't have financial resources to appoint a lawyer, he/she will be provided a state lawyer, am I correct? Is it the same for patent infringements cases?

Criminal cases and civil or tort cases are different...
 

Criminal cases and civil or tort cases are different...

So no state provided lawyer for these civil cases ah.. sounds very jialat to me (and perhaps to low budget inventors).. :sweat:
 

So no state provided lawyer for these civil cases ah.. sounds very jialat to me (and perhaps to low budget inventors).. :sweat:

The patent game favours the rich and powerful... that's the way it is... unless you patent is so bulletproof and the infringement is clear as daylight that a lawyer will say "wow! sure win! I will help you provided you give me a cut."
 

Back
Top