I hear this a lot, but a standard step in filing a patent is a patent search. You deliberately check to see if there is prior art.
Similarly, if you have a patent pending, you are required to advise the examiner as soon as you come across something that appears relevant. When I had one under examination by the USPTO I sent in a patent that I saw here on HN (which the examiner decided was irrelevant).
The point is that you have intent. Reading something and not recognising it as prior art is very different from reading something, recognising it as prior art and not disclosing it.
The rules you see about "don't read any patents" come from the professional paranoia which is universal to lawyers. It is a much tighter defence to say "it's impossible that we had knowledge and chose not to disclose, because we did not have knowledge, because we have an ironclad policy of avoiding reading patents" than it is to enter into detailed argument about who read or understood which patents on which dates.
The distinction is important. A corporate policy of "don't read patents" is not the same as the law. It is a pre-emptive defence tactic intended to deny a hostile litigant from using an expensive line of argument.
Again, I am not a lawyer, this is by no means advice. I just hope to convey that the law is generally far more comprehensive, sensible and subtle than telephone games give it credit for.
Similarly, if you have a patent pending, you are required to advise the examiner as soon as you come across something that appears relevant. When I had one under examination by the USPTO I sent in a patent that I saw here on HN (which the examiner decided was irrelevant).
The point is that you have intent. Reading something and not recognising it as prior art is very different from reading something, recognising it as prior art and not disclosing it.
The rules you see about "don't read any patents" come from the professional paranoia which is universal to lawyers. It is a much tighter defence to say "it's impossible that we had knowledge and chose not to disclose, because we did not have knowledge, because we have an ironclad policy of avoiding reading patents" than it is to enter into detailed argument about who read or understood which patents on which dates.
The distinction is important. A corporate policy of "don't read patents" is not the same as the law. It is a pre-emptive defence tactic intended to deny a hostile litigant from using an expensive line of argument.
Again, I am not a lawyer, this is by no means advice. I just hope to convey that the law is generally far more comprehensive, sensible and subtle than telephone games give it credit for.