Prior art COULD invalidate the patent. (remember that patents tend to have broad descriptions ("foam arrow!") and narrow specifics ("with a head in this shape, attached in this manner")
But invalidation that doesn't magically happen the moment prior art is found. Someone (Judge/USPTO) would have to rule that this IS prior art AND sufficient to invalidate the patent)
So even if the judge in this case decides this is prior art and kills the patent, this isn't "using the courts to bully a competitor out of business", but instead using the courts as legally correct. (sadly)
In recent history, we've seen a lot of cases where the courts trust and rely on the USPTO to rule correctly on patents, and the USPTO trusts and relies on the courts to test patents, so we end up with a lot of patents, a lot of cases, and a lot of lawyers getting paid.
Prior art COULD invalidate the patent. (remember that patents tend to have broad descriptions ("foam arrow!") and narrow specifics ("with a head in this shape, attached in this manner")
But invalidation that doesn't magically happen the moment prior art is found. Someone (Judge/USPTO) would have to rule that this IS prior art AND sufficient to invalidate the patent)
So even if the judge in this case decides this is prior art and kills the patent, this isn't "using the courts to bully a competitor out of business", but instead using the courts as legally correct. (sadly)
In recent history, we've seen a lot of cases where the courts trust and rely on the USPTO to rule correctly on patents, and the USPTO trusts and relies on the courts to test patents, so we end up with a lot of patents, a lot of cases, and a lot of lawyers getting paid.