As of this writing, Uniloc has claimed that we are in violation of one assertion in their patent. Our natural response would be to try to overturn that single assertion of the patent. It seems that you have to fight tooth and nail with the patent office to overturn each assertion in a patent, so it would seem to me that we should only expect to be able to overturn only one or two assertions of the patent before it gets to trial.
So, we should overturn the single assertion of the patent that they are claiming we violate, right?
As I understand it, the way plaintiffs like this commonly work is they wait for the defendant to overturn one assertion of the patent… and then they just adjust their lawsuit to claim that the defendant (me) violates a different assertion of the patent instead, thus running around the defendant’s overturning of a ridiculous assertion in the patent.
At that point, you are so close to trial that it is too late to overturn the next assertion in the patent that they claim, and they walk into court with a ridiculous patent that has not been overturned.
How many assertions are in this patent that Uniloc is using to sue me?
One hundred and thirteen.