This lower standard of proof is used in other areas of patent law, such as proving infringement.

This is particularly unfair because there is a lower standard-"preponderance of the evidence"-to prove infringement.

These analyses also pointed out that whilst the code could possibly have originated in Unix, this does not necessarily prove infringement of copyrights.

A reader pointed out to me in an e-mail this morning that many of those methods don't necessarily prove infringement in a legal sense.

Yes, there are ways it could identify tracks stored in iCloud as at least potentially infringing if not outright prove infringement in a court of law.

If the claims are not written in a way that describes how your idea was copied, you will not be able to prove infringement.

There is no requirement to show you learned the patented method from the inventor or the patent publication to prove infringement.

The court has also reversed a previous reluctance among judges to issue permanent injunctions even after inventors had proved infringement.

This is, perhaps, simply another way of expressing the established principle that the patentee bears the burden of proving infringement.

We didn't get everything we wanted, but we successfully proved infringement.