> "It's true that if you don't practice a patent, that doesn't mean you can't collect damages for it"
When an attorney nests negatives three deep, is that brilliance or incompetence? I'm trying to decide.
When an attorney nests negatives three deep, is that brilliance or incompetence? I'm trying to decide.
Also note: "X doesn't mean you can't Y" is logically equivalent to "can Y . . . even if X." The former phrasing is clumsier, but highlights the idea that things besides X might create a bar to Y. It places an overall negative connotation on Y, while the latter phrasing places an overall positive connotation on Y.
I personally would have said: "it's true that not practicing a patent doesn't prevent you from collecting damages for it." It's not the easiest thing to read, because it just buries the double negative in the phrase "doesn't prevent" but it avoids framing things in the positive.