Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
ich wollte auch mal wieder hier reinschauen...hab die letzten Monate ja nur den stetigen Verfall hier gesehen...Naja, Ich hab jetzt wieder ne hochspekulative (Spekualtius?) Akte Jahren gekauft...
nach fast 2 Jahren . Nicht gang ein Pennystock die Deutsche Bank aber dennoch mal was anderes.
Gut, dieser Beitrag ist etwas sinnentleert und etwas Offtopic...Die Admins mögens mir verzeihen.
schönes WE an uns Patrioten.
Enjoy, EsistJazz
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Date: November 7, 2008
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Dept: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
Before: Honorable Jeremy Fogel
JOINT CMC AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
This Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order is submitted by the Parties in the above captioned related actions. Pursuant to the Conference of Counsel conducted on
July 16, 2008 and subsequent discussions and in preparation for the Case Management Conference currently set for November 7, 2008, Plaintiffs Acer, Inc. (“Acer”), Acer America Corporation (“Acer America”) and Gateway, Inc. (“Gateway”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”) and Alliacense Limited (“Alliacense”) collectively “Defendants”) submit this Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order.
I. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE
No dispute exists regarding personal jurisdiction. All parties have been served. Defendants dispute this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2001 and 2202, and moved for the dismissal of each of the related actions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In the alternative, Defendants moved for a change of venue under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (where they subsequently initiated infringement actions against the plaintiffs in the present declaratory judgment actions concerning certain common patents to those at issue here). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue (the “Motion to Dismiss”) was heard on September 19, 2008. By Order dated October 21, 2008, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
II. FACTS AND THE PRINCIPAL FACTUAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE
Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation and Gateway, Inc. (collectively, “Acer”)filed this declaratory judgment action alleging that their products do not infringe three of Technology Properties Limited’s (“TPL’s”) patents. TPL is a small-entity patent owner involved for over twenty years with the development, manufacture and marketing of innovative high technology products.1 TPL holds patents on several different aspects of high speed computer 1 Co-defendant Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”) owns an interest in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749, 5,784,584, and 5,809,336 and 6,598,148. Alliacense Limited contends that it does not own an interest in any of these patents and should not have been named in this action. microprocessors. These patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 patent”), 5,784,584 (“the ‘584 patent”), 5,440,749 (“the ‘749 patent”), 6,598,148 (“the ‘148 patent”) and 5,530,890 (“the ‘890 patent”). These patents are part of the family of patents known as the Moore Microprocessor Portfolio patents, or MMP patents. Numerous major companies, such as Intel, Hewlett-Packard, and Nokia, have licensed the technology they disclose and claim. Following a series of licensing discussions between the parties, Plaintiffs filed their declaratory judgment action on February 8, 2008. Through their complaint, Plaintiffs assert that they did not, have not, and do not infringe any valid claims of the ‘336, 749 and ‘584 patents controlled, owned, and licensed by the Defendants. Plaintiffs further contend that for months prior to the commencement of the related actions, Defendants contacted each of them claiming that products made, used, and/or offered for sale by the Plaintiffs infringe one of more claims of certain patents owned, controlled and licensed by the Defendants. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement and/or invalidity as to the ‘749 Patent, the ‘336 Patent, and the ‘584 Patent. As explained in Section V., infra, the ‘148 patent and the ‘890 patent have also arisen as part of the dispute in light of infringement actions filed by Defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas after commencement of this action. Plaintiffs have sought a stipulation from the declaratory judgment Defendants for leave to file an Amended Complaint that will include these two additional patents and to dismiss the related cases in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants are currently considering Plaintiffs’ request for a stipulation.
I
II. THE PRINCIPAL LEGAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The principal legal issues that the parties dispute are:
The meaning of various claim terms of the patents-in-suit;
Whether the Plaintiffs infringe any of the patents-in-suit;
Whether the patents-in-suit are invalid.
IV. MOTIONS AND HEARINGS
Prior Motions: The Court denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on October 21, 2008. Anticipated Motions: Plaintiffs anticipate filing one or more motions regarding summary judgment and/or discovery and, if necessary, to amend the pleadings. Defendants also anticipate filing one or more motions regarding summary judgment and/or discovery. In addition, the parties anticipate motion practice and briefing concerning claim construction.
V. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
As noted above, Plaintiffs have sought a stipulation from the declaratory judgment Defendants for leave to file an Amended Complaint that will include two additional patents that
Defendants have asserted in their action pending in the Eastern District of Texas, i.e., the ‘148 and ‘890 patents. If Defendants do not stipulate, Plaintiffs will move to so amend.
The Defendants have not filed any answers in these actions.
VI. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
All parties have taken appropriate steps to preserve any and all evidence that may be of relevance to the issues in the present action, including electronic evidence. Plaintiffs propose that
voicemail messages that are not preserved as emails need not be preserved. Defendants are not prepared at this time to agree to that proposal and believe that all relevant information must be
preserved.
VII. DISCLOSURES
The Parties have agreed to exchange their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures within two weeks (14 days) of this Court’s November 7, 2008 Case Management Conference.
VIII. DISCOVERY
No discovery has been served thus far. The parties conducted their Rule 26(f) Conference of Parties on July 16, 2008. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), the parties submit the following discovery plan:
(1) Changes to disclosures. The parties do not expect that any changes will be made in form or requirement of the parties’ Rule 26(a) disclosures.
(2) Subjects on which discovery may be needed. Essential information for Plaintiffs to prove invalidity and non-infringement of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiffs expect Defendants to counter-claim for patent infringement and will need the Defendants to identify all accused products and how such products allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit.
(3) Issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information. The parties anticipate that certain discovery may be produced in electronic form and have agreed
to meet and confer, as necessary, to resolve any issues concerning electronic discovery as they arise. The parties agree to meet and confer regarding the production format for electronic
material.
(4) Issues relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material. The parties will meet and confer as necessary to discuss this when the issue arises.
(5) Changes in limitations on discovery. Each side shall be entitled to conduct no more than twenty (25) depositions, excluding expert witnesses. Each side shall be entitled to propound no more than twenty five (25) interrogatories; provided, however, that the parties reserve the right to approach the Court, upon a showing of good cause, for leave to serve additional interrogatories. Service of discovery requests and discovery responses among the Parties shall be made by electronic mail, with copies sent by U.S. Mail. Deadlines for discovery responses shall be determined by reference to the e-mail transmission date.
(6) Production of English language documents. The parties will produce English language versions of all documents produced, if available. The parties further agree to meet and confer to establish a protocol concerning translations of foreign language documents, with consideration toward minimizing costs of translation and focusing any disputes as to translations.
(7) Orders that should be entered by the court. The parties contemplate that a protective order governing the treatment of confidential information will be required.
(8) Production of Foreign Witnesses. Defendants contend that, having selected the forum in the Northern District of California, Plaintiffs should be required to produce their employees for deposition and trial in this District. Plaintiffs contend that foreign witnesses should be deposed where they reside or work. In this case, for example, Plaintiff Acer, Inc. is a Taiwanese corporation with its principle place of business in Taipei, Taiwan. Plaintiffs contend that depositions of Acer, Inc. and its employees occur in Taiwan. The parties anticipate that motion practice may be required to resolve this issue before depositions of Acer witnesses are conducted.
IX. CLASS ACTIONS
This action is not a class action.
X. RELATED CASES
The HTC Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00882) and the ASUSTeK Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00884) have each been related to the Acer/Gateway Action 5:08-cv-877. See related case order
of this Court dated April 22, 2008.
XI. RELIEF
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment against Defendants for non-infringement and invalidity as to the patents-in-suit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2001 and 2202 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
XII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR
The parties engaged in mediation sessions on October 2 and October 15, 2008, and have been unable to reach an agreement.
XIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES
The parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment.
XIV. OTHER REFERENCES
This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
XV. NARROWING OF ISSUES
The parties will most likely file one or more dispositive motions seeking to narrow the issues in this case. Both parties anticipate filing one or more motions for summary judgment.
XVI. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE
Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that this case is not suitable for expedited handling.
XVII. SCHEDULING
The parties propose that the Court adopt the following schedule based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, Patent Local Rules, and the Case Management Conference held on November 7, 2008. The Court will hold a Status Conference after the Markman Ruling to set dates regarding the close of fact discovery, expert disclosures, close of expert discovery, deadline to file dispositive motions, mediation and all other pre-trial dates. See Docket No. 32. Plaintiffs in this case understand that there are related cases in which there is an additional portfolio of patents known as the “Core Flash” patents at issue. Plaintiffs are informed that there is a dispute among the parties in those related cases as to the case management schedule due to the addition of the “Core Flash” patent portfolio that is at issue in those related cases, but not in this case. Plaintiffs contend that should the cases remain related and are consolidated, there should be a common schedule for all the parties. To the extent that the schedule below differs from what is proposed in those related cases, Plaintiffs defer to the schedule presented by the Plaintiffs in the related actions. Defendants contend that the “Core Flash” patent portfolio patents have not been asserted in this case, that the related cases have not been consolidated with this action and that, given the separate and different technologies, the assertion of the “Core Flash” patents in the related cases should not delay resolution of this action.
The parties’ proposed schedule is below:
EVENT DATE / RULE (if applicable) Rule 26(f) conference July 16, 2008 F.R.C.P 26(f) Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures November 21, 2008 F.R.C.P. 26(a)Due Date for Defendants’ Answers and/or
Counterclaims November 21, 2008 Last Day to Serve Initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement
Contentions (and related documents) December 5, 2008 (P.L.R. 3-1, 3-2)Case 5:08-cv-00877-JF Document 48 Filed 11/05/2008 Page 7 of 9
EVENT DATE / RULE (if applicable) Last Day to Serve Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (and related documents) January 20, 2009
(P.L.R. 3-3, 3-4) Last Day to Exchange List of “Proposed Terms
and Claim Elements for Construction” February 3, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-1) Last Day to Exchange “Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence” February 23, 2009 P.L.R. 4-2) Last Day to File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement April 24, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-3) Claim Construction Discovery Closes May 25, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-4)Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief June 8, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-5a) Plaintiffs’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief June 22, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-5b) Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief June 29, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-c) Patent Technology Tutorial* *If requested by the Court* July 20, 2009 (or at the Court’s convenience) Claim Construction Hearing [To Be Determined by the Court’s Schedule] Status Conference Three weeks after Claim Construction Hearing Final Infringement Contentions Per P.L.R. 3-6 (30 days after claim construction ruling) Final Invalidity Contentions Per P.L.R. 3-6 (50 days after claim construction ruling) Defendants to serve willfulness documents; opinion of counsel Per P.L.R. 3-8 (50 days after claim construction ruling) Close of Fact Discovery 6 months after final Invalidity Contentions Initial Expert Reports 30 days after Close of Fact Discovery Rebuttal Expert Reports 30 days after Initial Expert Reports Close of Expert Discovery 2 weeks after Rebuttal Expert Reports Trial TBD
XVIII. TRIAL
The parties request that trial be set to commence in December 2009 or January 2010, as the court’s schedule permits. The case will be tried to a jury. The parties expect trial will last 10-
14 court days.
XIX. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
Plaintiffs filed its “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” on April 23, 2008 and state that aside from the named parties, there is no such interest to report.
Dated: November 5, 2008 K&L GATES LLP
By: /s/ Timothy Paar Walker
Timothy Paar Walker
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION AND GATEWAY, INC.
Dated: November 5, 2008 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Fisher
Jeffrey M. Fisher
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: November 5, 2008 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
Pursuant to the above Joint Case Management Statement, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ____________, 2008
Honorable Jeremy Fogel
United States District Judge
Patriot Scientific’s Board of Directors Confirms Rick Goerner as President/CEO
CARLSBAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Patriot Scientific (OTCBB: PTSC) today announced that the Board of Directors has confirmed Rick Goerner’s position as its President and CEO.
Mr. Goerner was appointed interim President and CEO on February 29, 2008.
“Patriot is happy to report that it has given Rick Goerner the permanent title of Chief Executive officer. After serving as Patriot’s interim for the past nine months, the Board is pleased to have Rick on board as permanent CEO,” said Carl Johnson, Chairman of Patriot Scientific’s Executive Committee. “We look forward to Rick’s talent, experience and drive bringing forth an expansion of new growth and success for Patriot Scientific.”
“I am pleased with the decision of the Board and look forward to continuing our progress in transitioning Patriot Scientific to an operating company. We are making good progress in our merger and acquisition strategy in data sharing and secure data networking technology that we expect will result in future revenue growth and profitability, for our investors. We have a strong balance sheet, no debt and our market liquidity is good. Our joint ownership of the MMP™ Portfolio (key patents covering the design of microprocessor chips which are used throughout the world in products ranging from computers and cameras to printers and automobiles) continues to generate license revenues too. I am very bullish about Patriot’s future and I appreciate the confidence shown in me and our management team by our Board,” said Mr. Goerner.
Mr. Goerner has extensive experience as an operating manager and CEO with technology companies on a global scale. He served as President and COO of the Storage Products Group of Texas Instruments, formerly Silicon Systems, a one billion dollar supplier of mixed signal and analog ICs for the hard disk drive market. Previously, Mr. Goerner served as President and CEO of TransDimension Inc., an Irvine, California based, venture-financed, technology start-up company providing embedded Universal Serial Bus (USB) silicon and software solutions to a global customer base.
About Patriot Scientific Corporation
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation provides data sharing and secure data solutions for a connected world. Patriot Scientific has recently embarked on an aggressive business expansion initiative complementing its recent acquisition of data sharing software provider, Crossflo Systems Inc. Patriot is evaluating full M&A and minority investments in early-stage technology companies in the data sharing software and secure networking technology sectors. These investments are funded with revenues generated, in a large part, from the continuing successful Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio licensing partnership with The TPL Group. Patriot Scientific’s integrated core intelligence solution addresses the critical data/information sharing needs of the healthcare industry, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and federal, state, and local public safety and law enforcement agencies. For more information on Patriot Scientific Corporation, visit: www.ptsc.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 Corporation
Angela Hartley, 760/547-2700 ext. 102
aus: http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/996663#message
Das weitere procedere wurde festgelegt hier:
-> http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/995870#message
New Pacer--JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER--Not Signed By J
Den Zeitplan aus dem folgenden habe ich hier vorneweg aufgeführt - nur noch 1 Jahr warten, dann ist auch für dieses Verfahren Termin: December 2009 or January 2010, Dauer ca. 10-14 Tage!!
The parties’ proposed schedule is below:
EVENT DATE / RULE (if applicable) Rule 26(f) conference July 16, 2008 F.R.C.P 26(f) Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures November 21, 2008 F.R.C.P. 26(a)Due Date for Defendants’ Answers and/or
Counterclaims November 21, 2008 Last Day to Serve Initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement
Contentions (and related documents) December 5, 2008 (P.L.R. 3-1, 3-2)Case 5:08-cv-00877-JF Document 48 Filed 11/05/2008 Page 7 of 9
EVENT DATE / RULE (if applicable) Last Day to Serve Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (and related documents) January 20, 2009
(P.L.R. 3-3, 3-4) Last Day to Exchange List of “Proposed Terms
and Claim Elements for Construction” February 3, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-1) Last Day to Exchange “Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence” February 23, 2009 P.L.R. 4-2) Last Day to File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement April 24, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-3) Claim Construction Discovery Closes May 25, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-4)Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief June 8, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-5a) Plaintiffs’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief June 22, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-5b) Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief June 29, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-c) Patent Technology Tutorial* *If requested by the Court* July 20, 2009 (or at the Court’s convenience) Claim Construction Hearing [To Be Determined by the Court’s Schedule] Status Conference Three weeks after Claim Construction Hearing Final Infringement Contentions Per P.L.R. 3-6 (30 days after claim construction ruling) Final Invalidity Contentions Per P.L.R. 3-6 (50 days after claim construction ruling) Defendants to serve willfulness documents; opinion of counsel Per P.L.R. 3-8 (50 days after claim construction ruling) Close of Fact Discovery 6 months after final Invalidity Contentions Initial Expert Reports 30 days after Close of Fact Discovery Rebuttal Expert Reports 30 days after Initial Expert Reports Close of Expert Discovery 2 weeks after Rebuttal Expert Reports Trial TBD
XVIII. TRIAL
The parties request that trial be set to commence in December 2009 or January 2010, as the court’s schedule permits. The case will be tried to a jury. The parties expect trial will last 10-
14 court days.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Date: November 7, 2008
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Dept: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
Before: Honorable Jeremy Fogel
JOINT CMC AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
This Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order is submitted by the Parties in the above captioned related actions. Pursuant to the Conference of Counsel conducted on
July 16, 2008 and subsequent discussions and in preparation for the Case Management Conference currently set for November 7, 2008, Plaintiffs Acer, Inc. (“Acer”), Acer America Corporation (“Acer America”) and Gateway, Inc. (“Gateway”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”) and Alliacense Limited (“Alliacense”) collectively “Defendants”) submit this Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order.
I. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE
No dispute exists regarding personal jurisdiction. All parties have been served. Defendants dispute this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2001 and 2202, and moved for the dismissal of each of the related actions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In the alternative, Defendants moved for a change of venue under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (where they subsequently initiated infringement actions against the plaintiffs in the present declaratory judgment actions concerning certain common patents to those at issue here). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue (the “Motion to Dismiss”) was heard on September 19, 2008. By Order dated October 21, 2008, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
II. FACTS AND THE PRINCIPAL FACTUAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE
Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation and Gateway, Inc. (collectively, “Acer”)filed this declaratory judgment action alleging that their products do not infringe three of Technology Properties Limited’s (“TPL’s”) patents. TPL is a small-entity patent owner involved for over twenty years with the development, manufacture and marketing of innovative high technology products.1 TPL holds patents on several different aspects of high speed computer 1 Co-defendant Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”) owns an interest in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749, 5,784,584, and 5,809,336 and 6,598,148. Alliacense Limited contends that it does not own an interest in any of these patents and should not have been named in this action. microprocessors. These patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 patent”), 5,784,584 (“the ‘584 patent”), 5,440,749 (“the ‘749 patent”), 6,598,148 (“the ‘148 patent”) and 5,530,890 (“the ‘890 patent”). These patents are part of the family of patents known as the Moore Microprocessor Portfolio patents, or MMP patents. Numerous major companies, such as Intel, Hewlett-Packard, and Nokia, have licensed the technology they disclose and claim. Following a series of licensing discussions between the parties, Plaintiffs filed their declaratory judgment action on February 8, 2008. Through their complaint, Plaintiffs assert that they did not, have not, and do not infringe any valid claims of the ‘336, 749 and ‘584 patents controlled, owned, and licensed by the Defendants. Plaintiffs further contend that for months prior to the commencement of the related actions, Defendants contacted each of them claiming that products made, used, and/or offered for sale by the Plaintiffs infringe one of more claims of certain patents owned, controlled and licensed by the Defendants. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement and/or invalidity as to the ‘749 Patent, the ‘336 Patent, and the ‘584 Patent. As explained in Section V., infra, the ‘148 patent and the ‘890 patent have also arisen as part of the dispute in light of infringement actions filed by Defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas after commencement of this action. Plaintiffs have sought a stipulation from the declaratory judgment Defendants for leave to file an Amended Complaint that will include these two additional patents and to dismiss the related cases in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants are currently considering Plaintiffs’ request for a stipulation.
I
II. THE PRINCIPAL LEGAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The principal legal issues that the parties dispute are:
The meaning of various claim terms of the patents-in-suit;
Whether the Plaintiffs infringe any of the patents-in-suit;
Whether the patents-in-suit are invalid.
IV. MOTIONS AND HEARINGS
Prior Motions: The Court denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on October 21, 2008. Anticipated Motions: Plaintiffs anticipate filing one or more motions regarding summary judgment and/or discovery and, if necessary, to amend the pleadings. Defendants also anticipate filing one or more motions regarding summary judgment and/or discovery. In addition, the parties anticipate motion practice and briefing concerning claim construction.
V. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
As noted above, Plaintiffs have sought a stipulation from the declaratory judgment Defendants for leave to file an Amended Complaint that will include two additional patents that
Defendants have asserted in their action pending in the Eastern District of Texas, i.e., the ‘148 and ‘890 patents. If Defendants do not stipulate, Plaintiffs will move to so amend.
The Defendants have not filed any answers in these actions.
VI. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
All parties have taken appropriate steps to preserve any and all evidence that may be of relevance to the issues in the present action, including electronic evidence. Plaintiffs propose that
voicemail messages that are not preserved as emails need not be preserved. Defendants are not prepared at this time to agree to that proposal and believe that all relevant information must be
preserved.
VII. DISCLOSURES
The Parties have agreed to exchange their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures within two weeks (14 days) of this Court’s November 7, 2008 Case Management Conference.
VIII. DISCOVERY
No discovery has been served thus far. The parties conducted their Rule 26(f) Conference of Parties on July 16, 2008. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), the parties submit the following discovery plan:
(1) Changes to disclosures. The parties do not expect that any changes will be made in form or requirement of the parties’ Rule 26(a) disclosures.
(2) Subjects on which discovery may be needed. Essential information for Plaintiffs to prove invalidity and non-infringement of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiffs expect Defendants to counter-claim for patent infringement and will need the Defendants to identify all accused products and how such products allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit.
(3) Issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information. The parties anticipate that certain discovery may be produced in electronic form and have agreed
to meet and confer, as necessary, to resolve any issues concerning electronic discovery as they arise. The parties agree to meet and confer regarding the production format for electronic
material.
(4) Issues relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material. The parties will meet and confer as necessary to discuss this when the issue arises.
(5) Changes in limitations on discovery. Each side shall be entitled to conduct no more than twenty (25) depositions, excluding expert witnesses. Each side shall be entitled to propound no more than twenty five (25) interrogatories; provided, however, that the parties reserve the right to approach the Court, upon a showing of good cause, for leave to serve additional interrogatories. Service of discovery requests and discovery responses among the Parties shall be made by electronic mail, with copies sent by U.S. Mail. Deadlines for discovery responses shall be determined by reference to the e-mail transmission date.
(6) Production of English language documents. The parties will produce English language versions of all documents produced, if available. The parties further agree to meet and confer to establish a protocol concerning translations of foreign language documents, with consideration toward minimizing costs of translation and focusing any disputes as to translations.
(7) Orders that should be entered by the court. The parties contemplate that a protective order governing the treatment of confidential information will be required.
(8) Production of Foreign Witnesses. Defendants contend that, having selected the forum in the Northern District of California, Plaintiffs should be required to produce their employees for deposition and trial in this District. Plaintiffs contend that foreign witnesses should be deposed where they reside or work. In this case, for example, Plaintiff Acer, Inc. is a Taiwanese corporation with its principle place of business in Taipei, Taiwan. Plaintiffs contend that depositions of Acer, Inc. and its employees occur in Taiwan. The parties anticipate that motion practice may be required to resolve this issue before depositions of Acer witnesses are conducted.
IX. CLASS ACTIONS
This action is not a class action.
X. RELATED CASES
The HTC Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00882) and the ASUSTeK Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00884) have each been related to the Acer/Gateway Action 5:08-cv-877. See related case order
of this Court dated April 22, 2008.
XI. RELIEF
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment against Defendants for non-infringement and invalidity as to the patents-in-suit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2001 and 2202 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
XII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR
The parties engaged in mediation sessions on October 2 and October 15, 2008, and have been unable to reach an agreement.
XIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES
The parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment.
XIV. OTHER REFERENCES
This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
XV. NARROWING OF ISSUES
The parties will most likely file one or more dispositive motions seeking to narrow the issues in this case. Both parties anticipate filing one or more motions for summary judgment.
XVI. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE
Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that this case is not suitable for expedited handling.
XVII. SCHEDULING
The parties propose that the Court adopt the following schedule based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, Patent Local Rules, and the Case Management Conference held on November 7, 2008. The Court will hold a Status Conference after the Markman Ruling to set dates regarding the close of fact discovery, expert disclosures, close of expert discovery, deadline to file dispositive motions, mediation and all other pre-trial dates. See Docket No. 32. Plaintiffs in this case understand that there are related cases in which there is an additional portfolio of patents known as the “Core Flash” patents at issue. Plaintiffs are informed that there is a dispute among the parties in those related cases as to the case management schedule due to the addition of the “Core Flash” patent portfolio that is at issue in those related cases, but not in this case. Plaintiffs contend that should the cases remain related and are consolidated, there should be a common schedule for all the parties. To the extent that the schedule below differs from what is proposed in those related cases, Plaintiffs defer to the schedule presented by the Plaintiffs in the related actions. Defendants contend that the “Core Flash” patent portfolio patents have not been asserted in this case, that the related cases have not been consolidated with this action and that, given the separate and different technologies, the assertion of the “Core Flash” patents in the related cases should not delay resolution of this action.
The parties’ proposed schedule is below:
EVENT DATE / RULE (if applicable) Rule 26(f) conference July 16, 2008 F.R.C.P 26(f) Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures November 21, 2008 F.R.C.P. 26(a)Due Date for Defendants’ Answers and/or
Counterclaims November 21, 2008 Last Day to Serve Initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement
Contentions (and related documents) December 5, 2008 (P.L.R. 3-1, 3-2)Case 5:08-cv-00877-JF Document 48 Filed 11/05/2008 Page 7 of 9
EVENT DATE / RULE (if applicable) Last Day to Serve Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (and related documents) January 20, 2009
(P.L.R. 3-3, 3-4) Last Day to Exchange List of “Proposed Terms
and Claim Elements for Construction” February 3, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-1) Last Day to Exchange “Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence” February 23, 2009 P.L.R. 4-2) Last Day to File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement April 24, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-3) Claim Construction Discovery Closes May 25, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-4)Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief June 8, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-5a) Plaintiffs’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief June 22, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-5b) Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief June 29, 2009 (P.L.R. 4-c) Patent Technology Tutorial* *If requested by the Court* July 20, 2009 (or at the Court’s convenience) Claim Construction Hearing [To Be Determined by the Court’s Schedule] Status Conference Three weeks after Claim Construction Hearing Final Infringement Contentions Per P.L.R. 3-6 (30 days after claim construction ruling) Final Invalidity Contentions Per P.L.R. 3-6 (50 days after claim construction ruling) Defendants to serve willfulness documents; opinion of counsel Per P.L.R. 3-8 (50 days after claim construction ruling) Close of Fact Discovery 6 months after final Invalidity Contentions Initial Expert Reports 30 days after Close of Fact Discovery Rebuttal Expert Reports 30 days after Initial Expert Reports Close of Expert Discovery 2 weeks after Rebuttal Expert Reports Trial TBD
XVIII. TRIAL
The parties request that trial be set to commence in December 2009 or January 2010, as the court’s schedule permits. The case will be tried to a jury. The parties expect trial will last 10-
14 court days.
XIX. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
Plaintiffs filed its “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” on April 23, 2008 and state that aside from the named parties, there is no such interest to report.
Dated: November 5, 2008 K&L GATES LLP
By: /s/ Timothy Paar Walker
Timothy Paar Walker
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION AND GATEWAY, INC.
Dated: November 5, 2008 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Fisher
Jeffrey M. Fisher
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: November 5, 2008 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
Pursuant to the above Joint Case Management Statement, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ____________, 2008
Honorable Jeremy Fogel
United States District Judge
Kann man was dagegen machen ???
Sich von solchen Hohlbratzen beschimpfen zu lassen ??
Gruss
KC
greetz joker
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE
LIMITED,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS AND
TRIAL TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFFS'
WITNESSES IN THIS DISTRICT
Date: December 23, 2008
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept: Courtroom 2, 5th Fl.
Before: Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd (December 16, 2008 hearing date is requested in stipulated Request for Order Shortening Time, filed concurrently herewith)
Farella Braun & Martel LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
MOTION TO COMPEL ACER WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO PLAINTIFFS ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE LIMITED, pursuant to Rules 30 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move to compel the testimonies of all plaintiffs’ percipient witnesses in this judicial district. Having chosen to file suit in this district, the plaintiffs now refuse to produce their percipient witnesses who reside outside this judicial district in locations as far ranging as South Dakota and Taiwan. Because the law requires plaintiffs to make their witnesses available for depositions and trial testimony in the district where they initiated suit, this Court should enter its order requiring all plaintiffs to produce all their witnesses under their control for depositions and trial in this judicial district. This motion will be heard on December 23, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.1 or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard. This motion is further based on the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, supporting declarations, all pleadings, exhibits and papers on file in this action, and any other matters properly before the Court.
Dated: November 17, 2008 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: November 17, 2008 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE
BY: /s/ Charles T. Hoge_______
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendants
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
1 The parties have jointly requested a shortened hearing date on December 16, 2008. The stipulation is filed concurrently herewith.
Farella Braun & Martel LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
MOTION TO COMPEL ACER WITNESSES TO
TESTIFY IN THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
After nearly four years of licensing negotiations, plaintiffs Acer Inc., Acer America Corp.,and Gateway Inc collectively “Acer”)2 abruptly halted discussions and filed suit in this district, seeking a declaratory judgment that they do not infringe any valid or enforceable claim found in three high-speed computer microprocessor patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336; 5,784,584; and 5,440,749) owned by defendant Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”).3 Because two of the three patents at issue have previously been construed by Judge Ward of the Eastern District of Texas and all three patents at issue here are closely related, TPL requested this Court to transfer this lawsuit to Judge Ward. That request was denied by order dated October 21, 2008. Docket No. 47. In opposing TPL’s request, Acer reiterated its desire to litigate in this district, claiming that (i) plaintiff Acer America resided in this district, (ii) two of the plaintiffs reside in this state,
(iii) all of Acer’s U.S.-based business is conducted from this district, (iv) it is financially less burdensome to conduct discovery here, and (v) Acer Inc.’s “witnesses and representatives are able to take a direct flight to San Francisco.” Docket No. 34 at 2:2-13; 5:6-10; 8:15-18; 8:27- 9:9; & 9 n.4 (emphasis added). Despite these representations, Acer now refuses to produce its percipient witnesses here in this judicial district for deposition and trial testimony. Acer cannot have it both ways—forcing TPL to litigate in Acer’s preferred and purportedly convenient venue of choice while refusing to produce its percipient fact witnesses here. Thus, TPL respectfully requests, and judicial fairness requires, that this Court compel Acer to produce its percipient witnesses for deposition and trial testimony in this district.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
As Acer admitted in its pleadings, TPL has engaged in negotiations with Gateway since 2004 and with Acer since 2005 regarding their potential participation in TPL’s licensing program. Id. at 2:18-22. In February 2008, Acer abruptly ended these negotiations and filed this
2 Acer Inc. is a Taiwanese corporation. Acer America Corp. is a California corporation and a corporate subsidiary of Acer Inc. Gateway Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Acer Inc.
3 Defendant Patriot Scientific Corporation co-owns an interest in the three patents at issue. Declaratory judgment suit. Docket No. 1. On April 25, 2008, TPL moved to dismiss this case, or in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas because Judge Ward had previously studied the technology at issue and construed 33 terms across three of TPL’s microprocessor patents, including two that are at issue in this case (the ’336 and ’584 patents). Docket No. 19. Acer successfully opposed this motion, asserting the arguments that Acer America Corp. and Gateway, Inc. reside in this state and that it is financially less burdensome to conduct discovery here, in part because, witnesses and representatives are able to take a direct flight to San Francisco.” Docket No. 34 at 2:2-13; 8:27-9:9; & 9, n.4. At the September 19 hearing on the motion, counsel for Acer reiterated that Acer America resides in this district, that Acer America and Gateway have their “principal places of business in this state,” and that Acer Inc. “does business in the United States through its subsidiary [Acer America].” Declaration of Jeffrey M. Fisher In Support of Motion to Compel the Depositions and Trial Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Witnesses In This District (“Fisher Decl.”), Exhibit A (9/19/08 Hearing Tr. at 16:11-17). Noting that “this district affords direct access to witnesses and tangible evidence, and makes travel for parties and witnesses most convenient,” the Court denied TPL’s motion on October 21. Docket No. 47 at 6:10-11 (emphasis added). In preparing the parties’ Joint Case Management Conference Statement, the parties met and conferred regarding where Acer’s witnesses would be produced. The parties were unable to reach an agreement. Docket No. 48 at 5:25-6:4. At the November 7, 2008 Case Management Conference, Judge Fogel asked the parties to raise the issue with this Court and request that the dispute be resolved prior to December 19, 2008, the date of the next scheduled CMC in this action. Fisher Decl. Exh. B (11/7/08 CMC Hearing Tr.) at 5:23-6:13. The parties jointly left a message for the clerk of this Court on November 7 requesting a hearing on December 16 (if that is convenient for the Court) and have agreed on a stipulated briefing schedule. Id. at 5. The stipulation is filed concurrently herewith.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Legal Standard Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 specifies that “a party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of court” and that the deposing party can notice the time and place of the deposition. “A party may unilaterally choose the place for deposing the opposing party, subject to the granting of a protective order by the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(2) designating a different place.” Lexington Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 1999 WL 33292943, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 17, 1999). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(1) further states that “a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the reasons set forth below, TPL respectfully requests that the Court issue an order compelling Acer to produce its witnesses for deposition and trial testimony in this district.
B. Acer Should Be Compelled To Produce Its Percipient Witnesses In This Judicial District1. Acer Is Required To Produce Its Witnesses For Depositions And Trial Testimony In The District Where It Brought Suit.Because Acer chose to file this declaratory judgment action in this district, Acer must fulfill its legal obligation and produce all of their percipient witnesses for depositions in this judicial district. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have regularly recognized that a “‘plaintiff will be required to make himself or herself available for examination in the district in which suit was brought.’” Lexington, 1999 WL 33292943, at *9 (citing 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE: Civ. 2d §2112, at 75); see also Detweiler Bros., Inc. v. John Graham & Co., 412 F.Supp. 416, 422 (E.D. Wash. 1976) (stating the same rule); Rolex Employees Retirement Trust v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 1990 WL 200092, at *1 (D. Or. Dec. 3, 1990)(accord). “Since plaintiff has selected the forum, he or she will not be heard to complain about having to appear there for a deposition.” 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, FED. PRAC. & PROC.: Civ. 2d § 2112, at 75-76 (2008). In Lexington, the plaintiff argued that the depositions of its employees should occur at its principal places of business in Houston, Texas, and London, as opposed to San Francisco, where the lawsuit was venued.4 Lexington, 1999 WL 33292943, at *8. The Lexington Court rejected 4 This is the same argument Acer has raised in opposition to TPL’s request that Acer’s Taiwanese witnesses be produced in San Francisco for their depositions. See Docket No. 48 at 5:25-6:4. the plaintiff’s argument for several reasons. First, the plaintiff, having chosen its venue of choice, must bear the cost of conducting discovery in its chosen forum. Id. at *9. Second, having depositions in the “district where the action is being litigated …permits predictability in prospective litigation” and “pragmatically permits the trial court to resolve disputes which may take place during the course of depositions without undue expenditure of time.” Id. at *9 (quoting Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Dacar Chemical Prods., Co., 707 F. Supp. 793, 795
(W.D. Pa. 1989)). Finally, the Court noted that the plaintiffs chose to conduct business in the Northern District of California, and should have envisioned that litigation could take place in this venue. Id. The same factors and considerations apply to the case at hand. Acer has repeatedly stated in its prior representations to this Court, particularly in opposing TPL’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue to Texas, that the Northern District is a convenient and proper forum for this litigation. Docket No. 34 at 3:7-10; 5:6-11; & 9:5-9. Acer chose this district, in part, because Acer America resides in this district, and “Gateway conducts business and owns property within this district.” Id. at 8:16-17. In addition, if issues arise during the deposition of Acer’s witnesses, they are much more easily resolved by this Court if the depositions occur here in San Francisco than if the depositions are taken in Taiwan, South Dakota, or even any judicial district outside of the Northern District of California. Finally, all three plaintiffs conduct significant business in this district. Id. at 3:7-10 Even Acer, Inc., the Taiwanese parent corporation of Acer America and Gateway, has admitted that it conducts “all of its US business through its subsidiary Acer America, which is located in San Jose.” Id. at 3:9-10 & 5; see also Docket No. 36 at ¶ 4. Thus, similar to the plaintiff in Lexington, Acer should have envisioned potential litigation in this district because it chose to conduct significant amounts of business here. Acer must abide by “the general rule” and make its employees available for deposition in this district.
2. Acer Cannot Establish Any Undue Burden Or Compelling Circumstance That Dispels Its Obligation To Produce Its Witnesses In This District For Their Depositions and Trial Testimony “To avoid the application of this rule, a plaintiff has the burden of proving that undue hardship or exceptional or compelling circumstances justify his refusal to travel to his chosen forum.” Rolex, 1990 WL 200092, at *1. Acer cannot meet its burden here. As outlined in the statement of facts, Acer has repeatedly indicated to this Court that this judicial district is the proper venue for this litigation, that this forum is more convenient for discovery, and that Acer Inc.’s Taiwanese witnesses could “take direct flights to San Francisco.” Docket No. 34 [Acer’s Opp. to TPL’s Mtn. to Dismiss] at 2:2-13; 5:6-10; 8:15-18; 8:27-9:9; & 9 n.4. In Acer’s opposition to TPL’s motion to dismiss, Acer admitted that California is a more convenient forum for discovery than Texas: [W]ith respect to factor (3) “relative convenience of the parties,” Texas is significantly less convenient to Acer, Acer America and Gateway. Acer America’s principal place of business is located in this district, Gateway’s principal place of business is in California, and as far away as Taiwan is from California, Texas is even further, requiring additional travel time. Id. at 9:5-9. Acer further argued there that “it would be more financially burdensome on all the parties if they were forced to conduct discovery in Texas.” Id. at 8:25-26. By making these arguments, Acer recognized its obligation to bring its witnesses to this district for depositions and trial. Yet, conducting deposition discovery in Taiwan or South Dakota creates equal, if not greater, financial burden. Recognizing Acer’s convenience argument, Judge Fogel noted in his order denying TPL’s motion to dismiss that “this district affords direct access to witnesses and tangible evidence, and makes travel for parties and witnesses most convenient.” Docket No. 47 at 6:10-11. The fact that Acer, Inc.’s witnesses would need to travel internationally does not establish undue hardship. Courts have regularly compelled foreign plaintiffs to bring their witnesses to their chosen forum for depositions. See, e.g., Seuthe v. Renwal Prods., Inc., 38 F.R.D. 323 (S.D.N.Y 1965) (requiring plaintiff, a resident of West Germany who brought suit for unfair competition and patent infringement in New York, to submit to taking of his deposition in New York over his objection of financial hardship); Newman v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 962 F.2d 589, 591-92 (7th Cir. 1992) (J. Posner) (plaintiff’s claimed financial difficulties did not excuse her from her failure to appear for deposition in the district where she brought suit); Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales S.A. v. Clark, 8 F.R.D. 565 (D.D.C. 1948) (holding that defendants were entitled to take depositions of officers and managing agents of plaintiffs Swiss corporations in the district where suit was brought, and not in Switzerland as argued by the plaintiff). Indeed, forcing counsel for the parties in this action – all of whom reside in California – to travel to Taiwan for depositions of Acer’s witnesses would be significantly more burdensome for all parties than requiring Acer Inc.’s witnesses to appear in this district for their depositions. After zealously representing that this district is a convenient forum, Acer cannot reverse its position and argue that producing its Taiwanese witnesses here for their depositions and trial testimony would be unduly burdensome
or even inconvenient.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, TPL respectfully requests this Court order Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., and Gateway Inc. to produce all of their witnesses for depositions and trial here in this judicial district.
Dated: November 17, 2008 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: November 17, 2008 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE
BY: /s/ Charles T. Hoge_______
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendants
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
(1) TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, and
(2) PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
(1) HTC CORPORATION,
(2) HTC AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Came on consideration the Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond is GRANTED and the deadline for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. to file its Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is extended up to and including
December 1, 2008.
Signed by Judge David Folsom
Gruss CJ
was macht eigentlich der Abenteurer
1. grundsätzlich bin ich von der aktie weiterhin überzeugt.
2. dass der kurs zum kotzen ist....brauchen wir auch nicht zu besprechen....
warum der so beschissen ist ????? keine ahnung ..... von den reinen fakten her.......unverständlich .....
jetzt darüber zu spekulieren wäre auch müßig .....
-fakt ist aber doch, dass ptsc grundsätzlich patente besitzt und mit diesen patenrechtsverletzungen gletend gemacht hat und machen wird
- fakt ist,
-dass eine menge von firmen deshalb gelder gezahlt haben
-dass diese patente zur überprüfung anstehen.....
-dass sich personell einiges getan hat
-dass außerhalb der patentzahlungen gelder generiert werden
ohne nochmal den gesamten werdegang der aktie und der rechtlichen dinge usw. wieder aufzubereiten denke ich folgendes:
--> die chance hier aus ein paar tausend euros einen dicken batzen geld zu machen ist höher als bei vielen anderen unternehmen!
ob es so kommen wird...kann ich nicht sagen.....aber ich versuche mein glück und das ich hier größere chancen sehe (auf sicht von mx. 12 monaten) ist meine ansicht....
und ich denke ich kann hier eher mit geld machen als mit irgendwelchen superzocks.
fakt ist eins : ich konzentriere mich auf die aktien, die mich interessieren und von denen ich überzeugt bin....
die, die mich nicht interessieren, da schreibe ich weder positives noch negatives zu !!!!!!
die sind mir einfach egal......
deshalb sind die leute, die ständig dummes und schlechtes über die aktien schreiben (nennt man die basher oder schwachmaten...diese typischen habicht9, kindermolle usw.) für mich entweder doof oder haben zu viel zeit....
abschließend gibts jetzt nur die entscheidung der ptso abzuwarten ... bis dahin....k.a. !
hatte vor ein paar tagen standardwerte gekauft ......
toll......
daimler, db, bmw, comba .....
alles für die tonne derzeit .......
auch schon 15% minus ........
da habe ich aber mehr mit verloren als prozentual bei ptsc ........
:-)
Trotzdem ist PTSC aus meiner Sicht unterbewertet und ich bleibe weiter voll investiert.l
deine kurze aber präzise einschätzung kommt meiner überzeugung sehr nahe
Date : 11/20/2008 @ 9:00AM
Source : Business Wire
Stock : Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC)
Quote : 0.101 0.0 (0.00%) @ 9:00AM
Letter to the Shareholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation from President/CEO Rick Goerner on Business Update
Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC): To all shareholders and stakeholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC), this letter provides an update on significant business activities at the Company. These letters are part of the Company’s commitment to facilitate regular communication to Patriot Scientific’s shareholders to provide additional insight on topical business issues and to provide a uniform status report on the Company. I recognize the frustrations and concerns that the current market conditions, and our depressed share price, create and appreciate the need for frequent dialogue during these times.
In this letter I want to provide 1) a brief update of Patriot’s annual shareholder meeting, 2) the status of Patriot Scientific’s business activities, and 3) comment on some recent issues raised by shareholders.
Firstly, as announced, this past week the Patriot Board of Directors confirmed my position as Patriot’s fulltime President/CEO, a role I am pleased to accept. While we’ve had some small success in my first nine months, I am committed to making Patriot Scientific a long term business success and a premier Company in the technology sector.
Annual Shareholders meeting As you know, the Company conducted its annual shareholder meeting (SHM) in Carlsbad on October 30, 2008. The presentation material from the meeting has been posted on the Patriot website. I have also committed to a conference call following the release of our Q2 10-Q results in mid-January, more details to follow.
During the formal session of the SHM, votes were tallied on all resolutions placed before the shareholders for approval and, I am pleased to report, all measures carried – renewal of Patriot’s auditors, renewal of all five Board members for a new term and approval to increase the employee option pool and the number of Patriot’s authorized shares.
Following the formal SHM agenda, we conducted a business update during which Mac Leckrone presented an overview of the MMP licensing activities. Dan Leckrone then provided an update on the MMP patent re-examination process and the support of Anti-Patent Reform legislation. I presented a Patriot overview and update followed by Renney Senn, Crossflo’s President, who presented the Crossflo story. The business update was followed by a brief question and answer period and an opportunity to meet and talk informally with the Board and presenters.
Update on Business Activities The key theme of Patriot’s evolving M&A strategy is to leverage our current capital resources (cash and stock) and the future earnings generated from the company’s MMP™ Portfolio interest into a viable growth-oriented operating company. Even in this difficult market environment, Patriot’s favorable cash position and trading liquidity are attractive to many companies (both public and private) seeking cash to grow. In fact, we have far more opportunities than we can reasonably pursue which allows us to be selective in adding to our portfolio of solutions.
We released historic and pro-forma financials for the Crossflo Systems acquisition on Friday, November 14. Crossflo represents Patriot Scientific’s first full M&A transaction resulting from the company’s new strategic direction. While Crossflo’s prior revenues are minimal at this juncture, Crossflo’s unique data sharing software technology addresses a complex, widespread, and rapidly expanding need in the market to securely share data between multiple users. That said, Crossflo has invoiced initial revenues on several key projects within the government agency, state law enforcement, healthcare (in conjunction with Hewlett-Packard (HP)) and other public sector applications, such as a large statewide court system. It is the potential of these and follow-on opportunities, the strength of the HP partnership, and the initial traction Crossflo has achieved at an early stage of public sector and healthcare data sharing, which provided the basis for our valuation of the Company. Each of these markets represents multi-billion dollar revenue opportunities for database integration software. We expect Crossflo to have a profitable 2009 plan with more specifics released before year-end.
As noted in my last letter, Crossflo’s technology is highlighted with Hewlett-Packard’s Integrity Non-Stop server technology on HP’s healthcare solutions website. Crossflo is actively involved in several pilot healthcare projects that could grow into multi-million dollar initiatives connecting hospitals, physicians groups, and other medical service providers. With HP as a partner we are confident that we can increase Crossflo’s market presence and accelerate revenues in the healthcare sector. In the next month Crossflo will present to numerous hospitals via webcast to lay out the compelling Crossflo solution.
We are making good progress with our previously announced plan to acquire the assets of Iameter which will expand Crossflo’s healthcare product offering to include Iameter’s “quality of care” data analysis software for healthcare applications. We expect to merge Iameter’s resources with Crossflo before calendar year-end.
With Crossflo’s data sharing tools as the core, we are continuing to evaluate other opportunities to acquire complementary software products with specific emphasis on healthcare and government/law enforcement applications. We have analyzed several potential text search/analytical tools, but not yet found an acceptable opportunity. We have also “stepped up” discussions on possible strategic relationships with partners to help develop revenue opportunities.
Patriot has not announced a new MMP Portfolio licensee since my last update. As reported at the SHM, TPL/Alliacense are actively pursuing new MMP licensees and are aggressively opposing the current Patent Reform legislation. Visit the TPL website for how you can assist in the effort by writing your Congressman.
Comments on other shareholder inquiries 1) What are we doing about Patriot’s share price?2) What is the outlook for Crossflo and Iameter revenues and profitability?3) What’s the latest update on Patriot’s Auction Rate Securities (ARS)? 1) What are we doing about Patriot’s share price? As a shareholder myself, I understand the frustration that our depressed share price has created. While we cannot affect the share price directly and are always subject to the impact of overall market conditions, we consistently pursue all available and permitted means to support the stock in these troubled times. Toward that end, Patriot has maintained an aggressive posture with respect to those actions under its control, namely, a) Continue the buy-back of PTSC shares at attractive levels - Patriot has been an active buyer of its shares, but only within the volume and trading guidelines set by the SEC.
b) Increase investor community awareness of Patriot’s financials and business prospects - I am meeting weekly with potential new investors and have participated in two financial conferences in Florida and New York City. I also had the opportunity last week to present the Patriot story to many interested investors in New York at the Paulson Westergaard conference.
c) Work to accelerate Crossflo revenues - Now that we have closed the acquisition of Crossflo, we have begun instituting means to accelerate their market penetration and revenue growth. We believe that Crossflo is well positioned to capitalize on the now-emerging data sharing marketplace and support Patriot’s objective of augmenting Crossflo with complementary data sharing technologies.
2) What is the outlook for Crossflo and Iameter revenues and profitability? We have begun a 2009 planning process with Crossflo (and Iameter) to assess larger opportunities and resources required to support them. We have a planning meeting with Crossflo’s sales personnel this week to review key opportunities and the resources required to capitalize on them.
a.
We expect to release a 2009 revenue plan by calendar year-end b.
We project Crossflo/Iameter profitability by fiscal year 2009 Q4 (May 2009) 3) What’s the latest update on Patriot’s Auction Rate Securities (ARS) As shown in our most recent quarterly report, which we filed on October 10th, the Auction Rate Securities (ARS) held by us, although illiquid, retain approximately 95% of their face value as determined by a third party valuation firm. The 5% write down to date represents a temporary valuation adjustment reflective of their illiquid status. The relatively high carrying value is attributable to the strength of the underlying principal as a result of US government agency guarantees. The ARS, which continue to earn and pay interest, serve as collateral for a line of credit secured by us earlier in the year whereby we are able to borrow against 50% of their value when necessary. Also, we recently filed a formal claim against the institution through whom we purchased the ARS, seeking redemption of the instruments at full value and payment for specified damages. We believe we have strong arguments and intend to aggressively pursue this matter.
As always, it is my objective to continually improve the quality, uniformity and responsiveness of our communications to shareholders and the marketplace, and I will continue to look forward to your comments and inquiries. Rest assured that I receive regular briefings on the topics in which you have expressed interest through our investor relations executive, Angela Hartley.
I trust this letter has provided you with additional information regarding the status of key business initiatives at Patriot Scientific and the progress we are making toward building a “new Patriot” with solid future growth and profitability.
Sincerely, Rick GoernerPresident/CEOPatriot Scientific Corporation # # # 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.
Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) and Alliacense are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). PTSC is a trademark of Patriot Scientific Corporation. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners
;-)
Ich glaube und hoffe, dass wir in den nächsten Monaten für die lange Warterei entschädigt werden .....
aber......
Schaun mer mal .....
NewPacer--DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Action Filed: February 8, 2008
Declaratory judgment defendants Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”), and Alliacense Limited (collectively “Defendants”) answer and
counterclaim to declaratory judgment plaintiffs Acer Inc., Acer America Corp., and Gateway Case 5:08-cv-00877-JF Document 60 Filed 11/21/2008 Page 1 of 9
Farella Braun & Martel LLP
235 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 954-4400
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM/Case No. 5:08-cv-00877 JF 2 23129\1751325.2 Inc.’s (collectively “Acer’s”) Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Complaint”) by admitting, denying, and alleging as follows:
1. Responding to paragraph 1 of the Complaint, admitted.
PARTIES
2. Responding to paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendants admit upon information and belief that Plaintiff Acer, Inc. is a Taiwan corporation with its principal place of business in Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
3. Responding to paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendants admit upon information and belief that Plaintiff Acer America Corporation is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Jose, California.
4. Responding to paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendants admit upon information and belief that Plaintiff Gateway, Incorporated is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California, and that Gateway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acer, Inc.
5. Responding to paragraph 5 of the Complaint, admitted.
6. Responding to paragraph 6 of the Complaint, admitted.
7. Responding to paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Alliacense Ltd. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Cupertino, California and that Alliacense enters into negotiations with third parties regarding licenses to the patents-in-suit. Except as so expressly admitted, denied.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Responding to paragraph 8 of the Complaint, admitted.
9. Responding to paragraph 9 of the Complaint, admitted.
10. Responding to paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Technology Properties Limited and Alliacense Ltd. have their principal places of business in this District.
Except as so expressly admitted, denied.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
11. Responding to paragraph 11 of the Complaint, denied. EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY
12. Responding to paragraph 12 of the Complaint, admitted.
13. Responding to paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have been engaged in discussions with Plaintiff Gateway Inc. since 2004 and with Plaintiff Acer Inc. since 2005 regarding licensing TPL’s Moore Microprocessor Patent portfolio (“MMP portfolio”), including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336, 5,784,584, and 5,440,749 (collectively the “patents-insuit”). Defendants further admit that they have provided claim charts to the Plaintiffs identifying how exemplary Acer and Gateway products are covered by MMP portfolio patents. Except as so
expressly admitted, denied.
14. Responding to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that they have met on with Plaintiffs several times to provide details concerning TPL’s MMP portfolio, to answer questions Plaintiffs may have concerning their need for a license to the MMP portfolio patents and to discuss Plaintiffs licensing the MMP portfolio patents. Defendants further admit that Mike Davis, a Senior Vice President of Licensing for Alliacense, did meet with Plaintiffs’ representatives on January 20, 2008, and on other occasions, to discuss these issues. Defendants further admit that during the January 20, 2008 meeting, Mr. Davis indicated that if the Plaintiffs continued to refuse to purchase a license, TPL would have to consider pursuing legal options. Except as so expressly admitted, denied.
15. Responding to paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that the parties have been unable to reach an agreement regarding Plaintiffs licensing the MMP portfolio patents. Defendants further admit that Mr. Davis sent an e-mail on February 6, 2008 expressing frustration with Acer’s unilateral cancellation of a planned meeting in Vienna and the injection of new Acer representatives to negotiate a possible MMP portfolio license after several years of ongoing negotiations and meetings. Defendants further admit that, after expressing his frustration with Acer’s negotiation tactics and delay, Mr. Davis made the following request in his February 6, 2008 e-mail: “Please let me know if Acer still has an interest in resolving this matter outside of the court and if so, how you would like to proceed.” Except as so expressly admitted, denied.
16. Responding to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, admitted.
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST CLAIM DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ’336 PATENT
17. Responding to paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendants hereby repeat and incorporate by reference Defendants’ replies to paragraphs 1 through 16 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
18. Responding to paragraph 18 of the Complaint, denied. PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CLAIM DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ’584 PATENT
19. Responding to paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendants hereby repeat and incorporate by reference Defendants’ replies to paragraphs 1 through 16 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
20. Responding to paragraph 20 of the Complaint, denied.
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CLAIM DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ’749 PATENT
21. Responding to paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendants hereby repeat and incorporate by reference Defendants’ replies to paragraphs 1 through 16 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
22. Responding to paragraph 22 of the Complaint, denied.
DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendants allege and assert the following defenses in response to the allegations of the
Complaint, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses deemed affirmative defenses by law, regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein:
1. Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., and Gateway, Inc. have infringed the patents-in-suit.
2. The patents-in-suit are neither invalid nor unenforceable.
3. The Complaint fails to establish that venue is proper in this District.
DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS
For their Counterclaims against the Plaintiffs, Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs Technology Properties Limited and Patriot Scientific Corporation allege as follows:
PARTIES
1. This is a civil action for patent infringement. This action is based upon the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
2. Counterclaim Plaintiff Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California and maintains its principal place of business in
Cupertino, California.
3. Counterclaim Plaintiff Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California and maintains its principal place of business in Carlsbad, California.
4. Counterclaim Defendant Acer, Inc. represented in its Complaint that it is a Taiwan corporation with its principal place of business in Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
5. Counterclaim Defendant Acer America Corp. represented in its Complaint that it is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Jose, California.
6. Counterclaim Defendant Gateway, Inc. represented in its Complaint that it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California. Gateway further
represents that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acer.
JURISDICTION
7. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this counterclaim under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
8. The parties have contested that venue is proper in this district. However, Counterclaim Defendants have committed acts of infringement in this district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
9. On September 15, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,809,336 entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock” was duly and legally issued. All rights and interest in the ’336 patent are co-owned by TPL and Patriot. TPL has the sole and exclusive right and obligation to license and enforce the ’336 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’336 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10. On August 8, 1995, United States Patent No. 5,440,749 entitled “High Performance, Low Cost Microprocessor Architecture” was duly and legally issued. All rights and interest in the ’749 patent are co-owned by TPL and Patriot. TPL has the sole and exclusive right
and obligation to license and enforce the ’749 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’749 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
COUNT I
(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336)
11. Paragraphs 1-10 of the Complaint set forth above are incorporated herein by reference.
12. Upon information and belief, Counterclaim Defendants Acer Inc., Acer America Corp., and Gateway, Inc. have infringed and continue to infringe the ’336 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271.
13. The Counterclaim Defendants’ acts of infringement have caused damage to TPL and Patriot. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, TPL and Patriot are entitled to recover from the Counterclaim Defendants the damages sustained by TPL and Patriot as a result of the
infringement of the ’336 patent. The Counterclaim Defendants’ infringement of TPL’s and Patriot’s exclusive rights under the ’336 patent will continue to damage TPL’s and Patriot’s
business, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 283.
14. TPL and Patriot allege, on information and belief, that the Counterclaim Defendants’ acts of infringement were willful and deliberate.
COUNT II
(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,440,749)
15. Paragraphs 1-10 of the Complaint set forth above are incorporated herein by reference.
16. Upon information and belief, Counterclaim Defendants Acer Inc., Acer America Corp., and Gateway, Inc. have infringed and continue to infringe the ’749 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271.
17. The Counterclaim Defendants’ acts of infringement have caused damage to TPL and Patriot. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, TPL and Patriot are entitled to recover from the Counterclaim Defendants the damages sustained by TPL and Patriot as a result of the
infringement of the ’749 patent. The Counterclaim Defendants’ infringement of TPL’s and Patriot’s exclusive rights under the ’749 patent will continue to damage TPL’s and Patriot’s
business, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 283.
18. TPL and Patriot allege, on information and belief, that the Counterclaim Defendants’ acts of infringement were willful and deliberate.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, TPL and Patriot respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against Counterclaim Defendants as follows:
A. For judgment that Counterclaim Defendants Acer, Inc., Acer America Corp., and Gateway, Inc. have infringed and continue to infringe the ’336 patent and the ’749 patent;
B. For permanent injunctions under 35 U.S.C. § 283 against Counterclaim Defendants and their directors, officers, employees, agents, subsidiaries, parents, attorneys, and
all persons acting in concert, on behalf of, in joint venture, or in partnership with Counterclaim Defendants from further acts of infringement;
C. For damages to be paid by Counterclaim Defendants adequate to compensate TPL and Patriot for their infringement, including interests, costs and disbursements as the Court may deem appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
D. For judgment finding that Counterclaim Defendants’ infringement was willful and deliberate, entitling TPL and Patriot to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
E. For judgment finding this to be an exceptional case against Counterclaim Defendants and awarding TPL and Patriot attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and, F. For such other and further relief at law and in equity as the court may deem just
and proper.
Dated: November 21, 2008 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: November 21, 2008
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE, LLP
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38, TPL and Patriot hereby demand a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.
Dated: November 21, 2008 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: November 21, 2008
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE, LLP
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendant
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION