Received: by 10.68.195.165 with SMTP id if5mr26364152pbc.1.1337678649131;
        Tue, 22 May 2012 02:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: pr3ni26197pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: NT <meow2...@care2.com>
Newsgroups: alt.inventors
Subject: Re: Declaratory Judgment Actions
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 02:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <13969fbf-712b-402c-a8b5-dd89d1ace0a3@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
References: <c9c6e297-5cbb-4144-8f5e-28018467529e@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.23.45.88
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1337678649 3165 127.0.0.1 (22 May 2012 09:24:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:24:09 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.23.45.88; posting-account=11b2jAoAAAAU8VZrWkDV-ybXgOX3lxGh
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15)
 Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On May 22, 12:09=A0am, Changyz <chang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have some interest in the inventing/patenting area and recently came ac=
ross the term "Declaratory Judgment Action". From what I got from it, seems=
 like if I get a =A0patent on something and lately I find out that a compan=
y is infringing it, I cannot ask them to not infringe, or even should not m=
ention that they are infringing my patent, because they will sue me (!?!?!)=
, in a court of their choice. The bigger the company, the greater the chanc=
e of me being sued just for mentioning that they are infringing my patent.
> This is mind-boggling to me... Looks like small inventor has absolutely n=
o-chance in protecting their inventions because they cannot possibly have t=
he financial means to handle such expensive lawsuits, compared to deep - po=
cket corporations, and on top of everything they cannot even get a continge=
nt-fee lawyers in this case...
>
> Am I wrong, or is this totally unfair and intended to choke small invento=
rs? How does the new AIA explain this? (The idea was to enable invention, r=
ight?
>
> Thanks

Starting by telling us what country you're talking about would help!


NT