Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
dann ist genug Luft, selbst wenn man dann einen Aufschlag bezahlt.....
Wenn die nämlich negativ bescheiden.... kannst Du alles in den Wind schreiben.....
"non final action" für das 336er Patent:
http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/uspto/...-Final%20Axn%207-2-08.pdf
Leider reicht mein technisches Verständnis nicht aus um die Beanstandungen der einzelnen Claims zu beurteilen.
Vielleicht hat jemand eine Meinung dazu oder kann weiterhelfen.......
Gruß Captain J
operates....... http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/879547#message From Ron on Yahoo Posted by: wolfpackvolt on July 08, 2008 05:43PM I haven't seen the letter itself, but from the descriptions provided to me, this is a non-final action. Not surprisingly, a rejection was issued based on validity, specifically as to purported prior art in combining two patents identified as "Kato" and "Ledzius". If you look back at prior posts from Ease, me, and several others, you will find that this preliminary result should come as no surprise whatsoever --- it is just how the PTO operates, especially in view of the recent "KSR" decision. This is further shown by the result with the '148, in which there was also an initial rejection. I'm sure this is why we have seen a sudden drop in the share price this afternoon, but I really don't understand why, except for the fact that some folks react purely on an emotional level. The point is that this development with the '336 is nothing unusual --- we are still involved in an ex parte exam, which is solely between TPL/PTSC and the PTO, i.e., there is no third party adversary involved. Non-final rejections are commonplace, and the statistics as to re-validation upon FINAL action by the PTO largely support the patent holder. Folks, this is just the first round for the '336, just as we have seen with the '148. I certainly cannot guarantee a happy ending for all of us, but just as certainly, this process is far from being complete --- as a result, no one should be in a panic. We simply MUST let the process move forward and wait for the END result, without sweating the small (and fully expected) stuff in between. Best wishes to all. *************************** Wir müssen abwarten, bis zur "final action". So wie der Bearbeiter des PTO die Rejection begründet, wird das nicht durchgehen. Viele bahnbrechende Erfindungen, die patentiert sind, erscheinen im Nachhinein als ob sie "offensichtlich" für alle Fachleute gewesen wären. Das hätten dann auch einige unserer Lizenznehmer längst erkannt und geklagt, statt zu zahlen. Wie Abenteurer schreibt, das kann noch dauern..... Grüsse an Alle.
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Matzelbub" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Bosch Purchases Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio License
CUPERTINO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Alliacense today announced that Robert Bosch GmbH has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio license from The TPL Group. Bosch is the world’s largest auto parts supplier, and also manufactures and sells a wide range of consumer tools and appliances as well as industrial and trade products and services.
“The 21st century global marketplace is rapidly evolving based on technology adoption, and Bosch has made its way to the forefront by enabling newer and more usable product features that bring sophisticated benefits to their customers,” said Andre-Pascal Chauvin, Vice President, Licensing for Alliacense. “Bosch’s purchase of an MMP license is a tremendous validation of the strength and broad scope of the MMP Portfolio.”
The sweeping scope of applications using MMP Portfolio design techniques continues to encourage the world’s leading manufacturers of end user products from around the globe to become MMP Portfolio licensees. Over 40 global companies from the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have purchased MMP Portfolio licenses, including many industry leaders such as Fujitsu, Hewlett Packard, Kenwood, Mattel, Nokia, Philips, and Sony.
“By acting quickly to purchase a MMP license, Bosch will enjoy a real cost advantage over slower-moving competitors,” said Joe Minville, Vice President of Automotive and Heavy Equipment Licensing for Alliacense. “By removing potential financial liabilities and supply chain interruptions, Bosch has demonstrated its deep commitment to the satisfaction and well-being of their customers.”
The MMP Portfolio patents, filed by The TPL Group in the 1980s, cover techniques that enable higher performance and lower cost designs. These patents are fundamental to dozens of microprocessor-based key features and benefits in contemporary consumer and commercial products ranging from DVD players, mobile phones and portable music players to automobile systems, communications infrastructure and medical equipment.
About the MMP Portfolio
The Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by the privately-held TPL Group and publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC). The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.
About the Bosch Group
The Bosch Group is a leading global supplier of automotive and industrial technology, consumer goods, and building technology. The Bosch Group comprises Robert Bosch GmbH and its more than 300 subsidiaries and regional companies in roughly 50 countries. The special ownership structure of Robert Bosch GmbH guarantees the entrepreneurial freedom of the Bosch Group, making it possible for the company to plan over the long term and to undertake significant up-front investments in the safeguarding of its future. The company was set up in Stuttgart in 1886 by Robert Bosch (1861-1942) as “Workshop for Precision Mechanics and Electrical Engineering.” To learn more, visit www.bosch.com.
About Alliacense
Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of Intellectual Property (IP) licensing programs. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, technology experts, and experienced business development/management executives, Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of TPL’s IP portfolios. Founded in 1988, The TPL Group has emerged as a coalition of high technology enterprises involved in the development, management and commercialization of proprietary product technologies as well as the design, manufacture and sales of proprietary products based on those technologies and corresponding IP assets. For more information, visit www.alliacense.com.
Alliacense and Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
Contacts
Alliacense
Shawn Clark, 408-446-4222
shawnc@tplgroup.net
http://www.ariva.de/chart/index.m?secu=233029&boerse_id=33&zeitraum=9
Aber egal, PTSC reagierte ja auch sofort auf den Trendwechsel.
Grüße Abenteurer
Hier noch für die Akten:
Patriot Scientific Retains Ibis Consulting Group to Launch Outreach Program to Institutional Investors
CARLSBAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Patriot Scientific (OTCBB:PTSC - News) announced today that it has retained Ibis Consulting Group (http://www.ibisnest.com) of Newport Beach, California as their new Investor Relations firm effective August 1. Ibis will be responsible for driving a proactive investor relations program aimed at new equity fund investors, both in the US and globally.
"Ibis has a strong track record of success in introducing companies such as ours to institutional investors driving long term institutional shareholders of Patriot. I am very pleased to partner with Ibis to communicate Patriot's exciting and evolving transition story," said Patriot President and CEO Rick Goerner.
Working together with the Patriot management team, Ibis believes it will be able to garner a broad US and European institutional exposure that will provide stability and growth in the Patriot share price as the company continues to expand beyond its successful licensing program of the MMP™ Portfolio into, once again, an operating company through its M&A activity.
The Ibis team has a history of identifying and developing relationships with institutions across the US and Europe which are looking for small emerging companies in which to allocate their resources. These efforts will be instrumental in getting the kind of exposure necessary for Patriot to obtain analyst coverage and make the transition from the OTC market to a broader traded exchange.
About Patriot Scientific
Patriot Scientific is a leading intellectual-property licensing company that develops, markets, and enables innovative technologies that satisfy the demands of fast-growing markets for wireless devices, smart cards, home appliances, network gateways, set-top boxes, entertainment technology, automotive telematics, biomedical devices, industrial controllers and more. Headquartered in Carlsbad, Calif., information about the company can be found at http://www.patriotscientific.com.
About the MMP(TM) Portfolio
The Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB:PTSC - News) and the privately held The TPL Group. The MMP™ Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP™ Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP™ Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
http://www.ariva.de/chart/index.m?secu=233029&boerse_id=33&zeitraum=4
Grüße Abenteurer
Grüße Abenteurer
Ich bin ja der Meinung da kommt noch was, denn bisher habe ich keine genauen Zahlen gesehen, was die J´s für die Lizenz bezahlt haben. Das sie eine gekauft haben wurde ja so vermeldet. Aber selbst wenn nicht, gibts anständig Wachstumsperspektiven für PTSC.
Die J3`s haben nix bezahlt....
Wann und wie die zahlen werden, hängt wohl von der Patentsache/ Streitigkeit ab.
Wenn positiv..dann haben die wieder alles offen.
Da gibt es ne sehr gute Ausführung von Ronran.
Haben wir hier schon mal vor Wochen erörtert.
Fakt ist--> Positve Entscheidung in Sachen Patent --> Hyperaction !
Negativ....wird es in den Keller gehen .... dann werde ich alles verkaufen..
Ich habe für mich entschieden, diese "Geldregenmöglichkeit" zu ignorieren und mich an die klassischen Bewertungskriterien zu halten: Nachfrage, Marktkapitalisierung, Umsatz, Gewinn, Wachstumschancen und im Fall PTSC auch die Technologiepipeline.
Was letztlich den Aktienpreis bestimmt ist ja aber oft völlig unabhängig von Unternehmenszahlen. Gut dass da im Moment das allgemeine Interesse an Aktien steigt und schlecht, dass der Ölpreis immernoch so hoch ist, gut dann wiederum, dass er weiter fällt.
Grüße Abenteurer
Du hattest nur geschrieben, dass ...(was die J´s für die Lizenz bezahlt haben....)...
damit meintest Du doch die 3 Beklagten oder ???
Wie auch immer....
Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass das Potenzial dieser Aktie im DOllarbereich liegt .... und das Chance/Risikoverhältnis TOP ist...
Stimmt die UPTSO für PTSC und erklärt das Patent für "Gültig" Ist es wohl an der Zeit..."richtig" Kohle zu verdienen.
Eins ärgert mich....ich hätte mehr Stücke kaufen können zu noch günstigeren Kursen...leider habe ich derzeit kein Geld mehr...sonst hätte ich nochmal 5000 - 7000 Euro investiert !
Ist aus Agoracom kopiert...aber denke ich....
absolut Top von Ronran/Wolfpackvolt, der selbst wohl seit 27 Jahren Anwalt ist :
I consider most of the following to be academic at this
point, but I continue to get a considerable number of calls
about "how we got where we are". Having spoken with several of our
members here by phone over the last week or so, I have tried to use
an analogy with which I think most people have at least some
familiarity, or with which they can become somewhat familiar with
minimal effort ? based upon that, there have been requests for me
to make this post, which I am happy to do now that my schedule has
cleared a bit.
The more I have practiced law over nearly 27 years, the more
I have become convinced that litigation is very much akin to a poker
game ? reduced to essential terms, both are largely based on
principles of risk management. If you're not a poker player, do a
Google until you find a good basic text that outlines the game and
the ranking of the winning hands, then find one of those "poker
shows" on one of the cable TV networks and watch them play "Texas
Hold'em" or "Omaha" for awhile.
At the outset, I will tell you that, regardless of what some
folks on Agora apparently continue to talk about, there is no more
settlement money or any other kind of funds coming from the J3 ?
not in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, nor at any time in the
future. I have confirmed this with my sources close to PTSC, and I
have no reason to disbelieve them. With apologies and all due
respect to my good friends, Virt and Fut, who are both very
intelligent and always well-reasoned, there is no "continuing
accounting" or "ongoing infringement analysis" being done so that any
further J3 funds will be reported in August or at any other time. If
others in the Agora crowd wish to continue to tell each other what
they want to hear, that is their business ? however, you can come
up with any other "explanation" that the human mind can imagine, and
the result will be the same, which is that "there ain't no more".
There is nothing other than what has already been reported in the
April 10Q, i.e., no "contingencies" of any kind whatsoever, and
nothing even close to a "contingency" ? nothing that semantic
fantasies can create to make it otherwise. The J3 settlements as
based on the MMP patents have been fully and finally concluded,
without any kind of qualification whatsoever.
Sorry for the long paragraph above, but I wanted to be
absolutely clear about that subject. With all of that said, it is
time to move on.
So, how did we get to this juncture, and why? Before
explaining further, I also want to say that I have seen some very
good explanations among the more level-headed posters on Agora
(Ease, Lambertslunatics, and several others) on this subject, and
there has also been some element of accuracy at times even in posts
of those who tend to enjoy spewing FUD (such as "MIKE"). Therefore,
if some of this sounds familiar, that may be why. You will also find
a great deal of it, either directly or indirectly, in my posting
history on Agora beginning after the Markman hearing in May 2007.
First, you must realize that, contrary to what I see posted
on Agora every now and then to my utter amazement, both infringement
AND validity WOULD have been decided by the jury had the case against
the J3 gone to trial. If you do not believe this, try Googling
something like, "eastern district of Texas Forgent case", and read
the jury verdict, or a summary of it, in the "Forgent" matter. That
case, which was decided just last year, was one in which the
defendant made a "judicial admission" of infringement (same effect as
a confession in a criminal case) due to the strength of the Markman
ruling, then went to trial solely on the issue of validity ? AND
WON. Yep, even with a FAVORABLE Markman ruling and a LEGAL ADMISSION
of infringement, the patent holder LOST the case and was awarded ZERO
by the jury.
I am not trying to scare anyone with this, and indeed, I
believe I posted about it back on Agora ? rather, I am merely
pointing out that having a Markman ruling in one's favor is only, at
most, half of the story. If you cannot understand or accept this,
you will not be able to move forward ? find a litigation attorney
who has at least some experience in patent cases, pay his fee for a
conference rather than listening to the free legal advice that you
get here, and then give me the name and phone number of any lawyer
who disagrees with that I have said above.
Now that perhaps you understand a bit more, let's get closer
to discussing the effect of a trial setting. But first, let's play
poker ? it's not a perfect analogy, but it suffices for our
purpose here.
Imagine you have drawn "hole cards" that, if completed as you
wish, would lead to a very favorable hand, perhaps even a Royal
Flush. Nevertheless, each card of the common group left on the table
that is subsequently "turned up" has one of several possible
effects ? it either helps you, hurts you, or has no significant
determinative effect except to shorten the game and thus introduces
its own "time delay" for that hand. Of course, the same is true for
your opponent(s). And, just as importantly, the value of your bet, as
well as your decision to stay in the hand at all, must be based on
the change in the situation each time a "table" card is shown. If a
card that is favorable to you is turned up, your hand becomes more
valuable and you increase your bet accordingly. Conversely, if the
card is not favorable to your hand, you "call" (merely match someone
else's bet), or you fold and get out until the next hand. At some
point, however, you are down to the last card to be "turned up", and
you must evaluate the odds of whether that card will make you the
winner, or whether it will make your opponent the winner ? your
hand has a value of "x" before the last card is turned, and "y"
after it becomes known. This is simply a matter of uncertainty being
transformed into reality ? when there is no more uncertainty,
the "actual" value of your hand becomes known and fixed.
Moving further along, apply the above to the patent
litigation scenario. You have a favorable Markman ruling, but no
judicial determination of validity (and before anyone says it, lots
of prior licensing deals, reviewed by scores of other attorneys,
don't count for squat ? regardless of such things, none of it
constitutes a JUDICIAL determination). Thus, you have "turned up"
one key favorable card (the Markman), but not the last one
(validity) ? and to win, you must have both. If you go to trial
and lose on validity (a la Forgent), it is "game over" not only for
that hand, but also in an end-game context (unless you can win on
appeal, which is very difficult and takes perhaps a couple of
years).
Now move forward a bit in time with respect to the
litigation. The trial is getting closer, legal fees (part of
your "bet") are mounting, and the PTO doesn't appear to be close to
ruling ? do you risk a Forgent-type result, or do you "retreat
and live to fight another day"? As I always said back on Agora, a
trial setting is "the great equalizer", and whichever party has the
most to lose and/or is being the most unreasonable tends to get very
reasonable in short order when faced with the reality that the end is
near ? in our case, the J3 had virtually limitless funds, as
compared to TPL, which has a horrendously large burn rate and no
significant known revenue source other than litigation and licensing
deals. In other words, the J3 would have survived even a fairly
massive verdict, whereas TPL would have been severely hit (and PTSC
would have ceased to exist as we know it) in the event of a "zero" or
relatively small verdict, either of which would have been favorable
to the J3.
Of course, if certain Agora members read the above, they will
likely assert their current mantra about "preserving the patents" as
being the goal of the J3 settlement. Frankly, I don't disagree with
that point in and of itself, but unfortunately, it took those Agora
folks many months to morph into that position from their prior spin-
doctoring of "the numbers must be huge" ? and, combined with
the "I can wait until April" crowd (who now seem to be proclaiming
that they are waiting until August, when they will again be
disappointed if they are still waiting on something else from the
J3), and the "We'll be rich very soon" crowd, lots of folks got
sucked in by all of that complete and utter nonsense. I am not
speaking of everyone on Agora in making that reference, because there
are some really good and sincere people there ? the ones I am
talking about in this post were those who formed the most vocal and
assertive minority.
Obviously, it most assuredly was NOT the original goal of TPL
in the J3 litigation to merely "preserve the patents" ? instead,
the original goal was to use the patents as weapons, not "patent
preservers", and to kick some "J-butt" and take names by raking in
big dollars. TPL filed the J3 litigation in the hope of getting
those "huge" bucks that the vocal minority on Agora loved to talk
about so often, and it was not until later that "preservation" BECAME
the goal when things turned out the way they did ? there is
surely a "night and day" difference between settling for "huge
numbers" versus settling merely to "preserve the patents".
Alas, one cannot win an argument with someone who is
ignorant ? because one who vigorously argues (as contrasted with
inquiring) from a position of ignorance has a vast universe of
irrelevant information from which to speak, while at the same time
enjoying the advantage of staying disconnected from any obligation to
be accurate. It is one thing to ask a question about something that
is not in one's field of knowledge or experience, which is always
appropriate if sincere because it generates honest discussion ?
but it is quite another thing when someone continuously "holds forth"
in a field in which he or she has no education or experience, all the
while hiding behind the ever-present "all IMO" and/or "show me where
I'm wrong". The latter is especially irresponsible, and doesn't
warrant an intelligent response since doing so would tend to dignify
what was inane from the git-go ? ridiculous arguments
don't "challenge" those who are knowledgeable, but are instead merely
a source of "noise" and gibberish that deserves no ongoing
attention. Unfortunately, when that attention is not given, the
opponent usually then exhibits the infantile, tantrum-like, "hissy
fit" reaction of engaging in escalating personal attacks.
What I previously posted on Agora was based on a law degree
and more than two decades of litigation experience, while those who
argued incessantly to the contrary had neither ? it is up to you
to decide who and what is more credible, if you are still interested
in doing so at this point. In that event, you need only read my
posting history and compare it to that of those who have now begun
(or continue) to engage in the vile, vitriolic personal attacks
mentioned above, which for some reason the attackers feel is a
substitute for factual data and experienced-based analysis.
Having said all of this about the J3 settlement, I will also
say that I do not disagree at all with TPL on the decision to settle,
even for the relatively small amount. As in poker, that's just the
hand we were dealt within a given time frame, and sometimes, one's
hand simply cannot be improved upon before the allotted time and/or
the cards run out. As Ease and others have said, this will hopefully
allow us to get those "big(ger) numbers" from other alleged
infringers after re-validation occurs from the PTO. I am waiting
with great anticipation for that day, and in the interim, it appears
we do have some licenses that have not yet been reported in SEC
filings which will provide at least some revenue for the current
quarter. Also, there are the ongoing efforts of Mr. Goerner, who IMO
continues on the right track.
The bottom line is that all we need now is a favorable PTO
ruling, and our position will be significantly strengthened ?
while it is possible that Judge Ward could come to the same Markman
conclusion regarding the `584 even based on the revised claims
submitted to the PTO (see a post from Wolf in this regard on Agora
some time back, where Judge Ward did just such a thing), that remains
to be seen at this juncture. Please recall my post back on Agora in
which I indicated that, with a re-validation by the PTO, we would
then have TWO legally authoritative pieces of paper (one for
infringement, the other for validity ? both sides of the coin)
that we can then send to targeted infringers. This is considerably
different IMO from having a strong Markman ruling complemented only
by a patent or patents that are under challenge at the PTO ? yes,
the patents remain valid until they are legally invalidated, but then
again, the PTO proceedings act as a "cloud" on things due to the
element of uncertainty.
In closing, someone on the Agora board recently asked why we
would attempt to return to Texas and Judge Ward if we hadn't "won"
with the J3. This is a very easy question, and Billwilke hit the
nail on the head with a post in response ? why would we NOT
return to Judge Ward when he has previously rendered such a favorable
Markman ruling to us, in a venue where jurors, despite the Forgent
exception, are largely favorable to patent holders? It is unlikely
that Judge Ward, absent new evidence, would rule differently in
subsequent Markman hearings on the same patents (except for perhaps
the `584, with its "improved" claims), and as a result, we have
our "foot in the door" there in the Eastern District of Texas.
Nevertheless, the attempted return to Marshall does not in any way
prove that the J3 settlements were "huge", or that there is anything
coming from them in the future ? any attempt to make such a
connection is flawed, as it is based on a non-sequitur.
I hope the above has helped you in forming a better
understanding of the litigation process and our current status. As
it has turned out, our old friend, Larscot, was the most perceptive
of all of us when he posted, quite some time ago back on Agora, that
there would be no change in status until the PTO rules. Kudos to
you, Larry, and I hope you and yours are well.
If you have other questions, I will try to find time to
answer them, but I am not in a position to make promises even though
I now have a bit more "breathing room" due to a trial having been
moved from mid-June to later this year. Best wishes to all.
Trotzdem muss man auch immer vorsichtig sein, nie zu viel in eine Aktie stecken - weißt Du ja sicher. Wie heißt es doch so schön: andere Mütter haben auch schöne Töchter.
0.22 403 OBB 11:24:42
0.22 700 OBB 11:12:17
0.2211 100 OBB 10:22:20
0.2211 520 OBB 10:19:30
Audiovox Purchases Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio License
CUPERTINO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Alliacense today announced that Audiovox Corporation has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio license from The TPL Group. Established in 1965, Audiovox Corporation manufactures and markets mobile and consumer electronics products as well as consumer electronics accessories.
“Audiovox is the third MMP Portfolio licensee in the past month,” said Roy Maharaj, Vice President, Licensing for Alliacense. “We continue to see strong interest from companies that wish to reduce their royalty exposure and the possibility of supply chain disruptions.”
The sweeping scope of applications using MMP Portfolio design techniques continues to encourage the world’s leading manufacturers of end user products from around the globe to become MMP Portfolio licensees. Over 40 global companies from the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have purchased MMP Portfolio licenses, including many industry leaders such as Fujitsu, Hewlett Packard, Kenwood, Mattel, Nokia, Philips, and Sony.
The MMP Portfolio patents, filed by The TPL Group in the 1980s, cover techniques that enable higher performance and lower cost designs. These patents are fundamental to dozens of microprocessor-based key features and benefits in contemporary consumer and commercial products ranging from DVD players, mobile phones and portable music players to automobile systems, communications infrastructure and medical equipment.
About the MMP Portfolio
The Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by the privately-held TPL Group and publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB:PTSC). The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.
About Audiovox Corporation
Audiovox Corporation is a leading international supplier and value added service provider in the consumer electronics accessory industry. The Company conducts its business through subsidiaries and markets mobile and consumer electronics and consumer electronics accessories products both domestically and internationally under several of its own brands. It also functions as an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) supplier to a wide variety of customers, through several distinct distribution channels. For additional information, please visit Audiovox on the Web at http://www.audiovox.com.
About Alliacense
Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of Intellectual Property (IP) licensing programs. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, technology experts, and experienced business development/management executives, Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of TPL’s IP portfolios. Founded in 1988, The TPL Group has emerged as a coalition of high technology enterprises involved in the development, management and commercialization of proprietary product technologies as well as the design, manufacture and sales of proprietary products based on those technologies and corresponding IP assets. For more information, visit www.alliacense.com.
Alliacense and Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
Contacts
Alliacense
Shawn Clark, 408-446-4222
shawnc@tplgroup.net
CARLSBAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Patriot Scientific Corp. (OTCBB: PTSC) today announced that Audiovox Corporation has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio license from The TPL group, Patriot Scientific’s exclusive licensing agent. Audiovox is a leading manufacturer and marketer of mobile and consumer electronics.
The Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio contains intellectual property, including seven U.S. patents and patents in Europe and Japan, jointly owned by Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC) and the privately held The TPL Group. The MMP™ Portfolio enables enhanced performance in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices.
“Audiovox becomes the third MMP Portfolio licensee announced in the past 30 days,” said Rick Goerner, Patriot Scientific President and CEO. “We’re pleased that TPL/Alliacense continues to close MMP Portfolio license transactions on a global basis. More than 45 global companies in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have purchased MMP Portfolio licenses, including industry leaders such as Fujitsi, Hewlett Packard, Direct TV, Nokia, Philips, Sony and Robert Bosch.
“The MMP portfolio patents cover techniques that enable higher performance and lower costs. These patents are fundamental to hundreds of microprocessor-based consumer and commercial products from DVD players, mobile phones and portable music players to automobile systems, communications infrastructure and medical equipment,” Mr. Goerner said.
About the MMP™ Portfolio
The Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC BB: PTSC) and the privately held The TPL Group. The MMP™ Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP™ Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP™ Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.
About Patriot Scientific
Patriot Scientific is a leading intellectual-property licensing company that develops, markets, and enables innovative technologies that satisfy the demands of fast-growing markets for wireless devices, smart cards, home appliances, network gateways, set-top boxes, entertainment technology, automotive telematics, biomedical devices, industrial controllers and more. Headquartered in Carlsbad, Calif., information about the company can be found at http://www.patriotscientific.com.
About Audiovox Corporation
Audiovox Corporation is a leading international supplier and value added service provider in the consumer electronics accessory industry. The Company conducts its business through subsidiaries and markets mobile and consumer electronics and consumer electronics accessories products both domestically and internationally under several of its own brands. It also functions as an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) supplier to a wide variety of customers, through several distinct distribution channels. For additional information, please visit Audiovox on the web at http://www.audiovox.com .
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Contacts
Patriot Scientific
Paul Bibeau, 760-547-2700