It's not needed at all. Valid prior art is a defense to patent infringement because it outright invalidates their patent. Full stop. That's the best leverage out there. It's better than being able to prove non-infringement, because the patent remains in that scenario. So when you have good prior art and they threaten to sue, you say "okay, I'll invalidate your patent in a motion to dismiss". If you want to countersue, now you risk your patent being invalidated and still being found liable for infringement.
The patent is beside the point of the business of inventing and bringing products to market. It's a legal weapon, not a tool to encourage commerce.
Maybe? It depends on the patent and their practice. Just because someone accuses you of infringing doesn't mean their practice infringes your patent. It doesn't even follow at all, actually.
It's not about protecting your inventions. It's a legal weapon.
>The patent is beside the point of the business of inventing and bringing products to market. It's a legal weapon, not a tool to encourage commerce.
I'm not sure how this is responsive to my comment, which was directed at correcting your misconceptions about how patents work and are used. I think some people would disagree that it doesn't encourage commerce. Were it not for patents, many inventions would be trapped under trade secrets and would never have been disclosed to the public at all. It's also an odd point to make to me as I never suggested that a patent was a "tool to encourage commerce."
>It's not about protecting your inventions. It's a legal weapon.
Yes, a patent is a legal tool. You were the one that suggested owning a patent was a defensive tool, which I explained to you is not really true, most especially in the context you provided of countersuing.
It's a legal weapon because if people use patents, you should have a patent portfolio just to be able to conduct business if money is no object.
I'll concede that it's not really viable for individual inventors and entrepreneurs, especially since lawyers are expensive and energy and effort are better spent elsewhere. Better hope you slipped by unnoticed and never get sued then.
The patent is beside the point of the business of inventing and bringing products to market. It's a legal weapon, not a tool to encourage commerce.
Maybe? It depends on the patent and their practice. Just because someone accuses you of infringing doesn't mean their practice infringes your patent. It doesn't even follow at all, actually.
It's not about protecting your inventions. It's a legal weapon.