Two Rambus Patents Invalidated By USPTO

First time accepted submitter rnswebx writes "Two patents that chip designer Rambus used to win patent lawsuits against Nvidia, HP, and others have been declared invalid by the USPTO." The Inquirer has a similar story up, with appropriately snarky sub-head.

Patent question

[j00r0m4nc3r]

If a company is sued by a patent holder and forced to pay licensing fees, and that patent is later invalidated, is that company entitled to reimbursement?

USPTO

[DinDaddy]

My first thought upon reading this was "They should make Rambus repay the companies that gave them licensing fees based on these." My second was "with treble damages to discourage this shit." My third was "On the other hand, they were just (underhandedly) playing the system as it exists so maybe that's a little unfair". Then I realized the solution. Make the USPTO repay the license fees. That would improve the quality of their patent review really really fast.

In my dreams. It would more likely mean no patent ever got overturned.

Why?

[Splab]

I know it's slightly off for a slashdot reader, but I did read the articles, and none of them talk about why the patents where rejected.

They can apeal the rejection, so nothing is settled yet - but it would be nice to know on what grounds those patents where rejected; prior art? obvious or bribes?