Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
Was kümmerst Du Dich um DInge, die Dich eigentlich nicht interessieren ?
Steig ein, oder lass es.
Date : 01/20/2009 @ 5:00PM
Source : PR Newswire
Stock : (PTSC)
Quote : 0.13 0.0069 (5.61%) @ 12:11PM
Crossflo Names Gloria Kohl as Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Kohl to manage the marketing and sales efforts of Crossflo DataExchange(R) Platform and Related Services
SAN DIEGO, Jan. 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Crossflo Systems, Inc., (http://www.crossflo.com/) a Patriot Scientific company, (OTC:PTSC) (BULLETIN BOARD: PTSC) announced today that it has appointed Gloria C. Kohl as senior vice president of sales and marketing. Kohl will lead the sales efforts of the justice and public safety team as well as the healthcare group.
Kohl has over 25 years experience in sales and marketing, with nearly a decade in the justice and public safety software sector. She was most recently the vice president of sales and client services at SpireLine Systems, Inc., providing mobile field reporting software to public safety departments. Ms. Kohl will manage the marketing and sales efforts of both the standards-based Crossflo DataExchange(R) platform and related services, as well as build the client base for the newly acquired Iameter portfolio of data analysis products that assess quality of care delivery for hospitals and physician groups.
"Gloria has a demonstrated ability to understand extremely complex markets and to direct a sales effort that targets a very challenging client base - local, state and federal government and public health agencies," said Renney Senn, Crossflo's president. "She will be a strong leader for our team as it grows and we continue establishing Crossflo as the standard for data exchange and information sharing solutions."
"In a world where rapid, secure, scalable, customer-controlled information sharing is becoming mission critical, our data exchange products and services are increasingly essential," noted Kohl. "I look forward to helping our customers understand and access these solutions."
About Crossflo
Crossflo Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Patriot Scientific Corporation, provides innovative data exchange and information solutions to the justice and public safety sectors and the healthcare industry. Crossflo's flagship software product, the Crossflo DataExchange(R) (CDX) solution, is commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) middleware specifically designed for interagency and cross-domain data sharing using standards-based architecture and intuitive interface design. The Iameter Medical Information Solution suite provides analysis of hospital data and insight tools to achieve increased quality and efficiency for the wider healthcare community. Crossflo solutions are backed by operationally oriented professional services and expertise in HL7, NIEM, GJXDM, and IEPD deployments. For more information on Crossflo Systems, Inc., visit: http://www.crossflo.com/. For information on Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC BB: PTSC), building an integrated core intelligence solution in the data sharing software and secure networking technology sectors, visit http://www.ptsc.com/.
Media Contact: Angela Hartley Senior Vice President 858-724-2216, x223
DATASOURCE: Crossflo Systems, Inc.
CONTACT: Angela Hartley, Senior Vice President of Crossflo Systems,
Inc., +1-858-724-2216, ext. 223,
Web Site: http://www.crossflo.com/
http://www.ptsc.com/
Darin die Aussage:
XXXX The third patent (the ’336 patent) is currently in reexamination before the PTO, where all claims currently stand rejected. See Chen Decl., Ex. B. xxxx
War das bekannt - alle Claims des 336 zurückgewiesen? - Klingt nicht gut.
Das September auslaufende 148 er kann noch 7 Jahre danach (wenn gültig) zu Lizenzzahlungen führen.
New Pacer--OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC. TO DEF
posted on Jan 21, 09 10:05PM
New Pacer--OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
HTC CORPORATION and HTC
AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No. C 08 00882 JF
(related to C 08 00877 JF and C 08 00884)
OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC. TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Date: January 30, 2009
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
The Honorable Jeremy Fogel
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration rests solely on the recent license between the ASUSTeK Entities and the TPL Entities (the “ASUSTeK License”). But the ASUSTeK License does not alter the substantive grounds underlying this Court’s previous Order (the “October 21 Order”) and therefore cannot serve as the basis for reconsideration of that Order. The Defendants’ Motion merely reiterates the arguments proffered in their original motion to dismiss, which were expressly and properly rejected by this Court – and should be again. The Defendants’ motion ignores the Court’s previous holding that TPL’s prior Eastern District of Texas action against other defendants, which was dismissed long before the filing of the present declaratory relief actions, could not serve as a basis for transfer under controlling Federal Circuit law: The Federal Circuit has announced a general rule that it would be an “abuse of discretion” to transfer a first-filed declaratory relief action to another district based on the existence of a prior suit in that district when, as here, the prior suit was not pending at the time the declaratory judgment relief action was filed and where the first-filed action will settle the legal relations of the parties. Docket (“Dkt.”) No. 61 at 7:8-12 (citing Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mosaid Technologies, Inc., 518 F.3d 897, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). This is fatal to the Defendants’ motion. Simply put, the fact the ASUSTeK License may result in a reduction (but not elimination) of the number of patents-insuit that were not construed in the prior suit does not change the fact that the prior suit was
dismissed and inactive before the instant actions were filed. The motion for reconsideration, having identified no other basis on which to seek transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), therefore fails as a matter of law under Micron. The ASUSTeK License similarly has no effect on the Court’s finding that the convenience factors under § 1404(a) in light of Micron heavily favored the Northern District of California. The correctness of this Court’s decision is further reinforced by a recent decision from the Federal Circuit that granted a writ of mandamus against the Eastern District of Texas and ordered a patent case out of that district when, as here, that forum lacked a meaningful connection to the parties. See In re TS Tech USA Corp., 2008 WL 5397522 (Fed Cir. Dec. 29, 2008) The presence of patents that were not considered in the prior case was another one of the multiple factors supporting this Court’s decision to deny dismissal and transfer. This factor also remains. In fact, two patents that were never previously construed remain in the instant first-filed case. Of the three patents-in-suit that were the subject of the prior Texas case, TPL has removed one of them from this case by choosing not to assert it (U.S. Patent No. 5,784,584). A second patent from the prior case (U.S. Patent No. 6,598,148) expires in seven months (many years before the other patents-in-suit), while the third patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336) is currently in reexamination before the Patent Office where all claims presently stand rejected. Not surprisingly, in light of these developments, it is almost certain that the present case will focus more heavily on the two new patents that were not previously asserted. Finally, the Micron court expressly cautioned against basing a § 1404(a) transfer decision on variations in the number of defendants or patent claims, which can be easily manipulated. 518 F.3d at 903. The fact remains that the present action will involve legal and factual issues, accused products, and/or claim terms that were never addressed by the Texas court – just as it did prior to
the ASUSTeK License.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Judge Ward’s Claim Construction Order in the Dismissed TPL Lawsuit. In 2005, the Defendants filed a patent infringement action against various entities in the Eastern District of Texas. See Technology Properties Ltd. v. Fujitsu Ltd., No. 2:05-cv-00494- TJW. That case did not involve any of the plaintiffs in the present Related Actions, and involved for the Court’s convenience, a copy of this decision is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kyle D. Chen in Support of the Opposition of Plaintiffs HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (hereinafter “Chen Decl.”) only three of the patents at issue in the present litigation.2 The Texas lawsuit was assigned to the Honorable John T. Ward, who conducted a claim construction hearing in 2006 and issued a claim construction order in 2007. The action was dismissed later that year following a settlement between TPL and all but one of the defendants. TPL unsuccessfully appealed Judge Ward’s rulings as to the ’584 patent – the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the trial court’s rulings. See Technology Properties Ltd. v. ARM Ltd., No. 2008-1020 (Fed. Cir. 2008). B. The Present Action Focuses on Patents Not Previously Considered. The present action for declaratory judgment was filed on February 8, 2008, as were the related ASUSTeK and Acer litigations (ASUSTeK Computer Inc. v. Technology Properties Ltd., No. 5:08-CV-0884 JF (the “ASUSTeK Action”), and Acer, Inc v. Technology Properties Ltd., No. 5:08-CV-00877 JF (the “Acer Action”)). In the present action, HTC seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity as to five patents: the ’584 patent, the ’336 patent, and the ’148 patent, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749 (the “’749 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,530,890 (the “’890 patent”). Only three of these five patents were considered in the prior Texas action (’584, ’148 and ’336), but those patents are largely irrelevant to these proceedings. First, the TPL Entities abandoned their claim of infringement under the ’584 patent by failing to raise it in their answer and counterclaims. Dkt No. 60 at 6:18-9:2. They also declined to serve any infringement contentions under Patent Local Rule 3-1 for the ’584 patent, and thus have removed that patent from this case. A second patent (the ’148 patent) is scheduled to expire on August 3, 2009, many
years before the expiration of the other patents-in-suit. The third patent (the ’336 patent) is currently in reexamination before the PTO, where all claims currently stand rejected. See Chen Decl., Ex. B. It is not surprising, therefore, that the focus of the infringement claims advanced by the TPL Entities has been on the two patents that were never asserted in the prior Texas action. On December 19, 2008, the parties to the ASUSTeK Action entered into a license 2 U.S. Patent Nos. 5,784,584 (the “’584 patent”), 5,809,336 (the “’336 patent”), and 6,598,148 (the “’148 patent”). agreement which covered the patents at issue in the present action as well as four additional patents from a different portfolio. The ASUSTeK License did not affect the parties, patents, claims, or issues pending in the Acer Action or the present action.
III. ARGUMENT
A. The Northern District of California Remains the Proper Venue.
The Federal Circuit has held that an assessment of whether to transfer a patent action must be based on the convenience factors under § 1404(a). Micron, 518 F.3d at 902-03 (“Thus, in cases such as this with competing forum interests, the trial court needs to consider the ‘convenience factors’ found in a transfer analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).”). A recent decision from the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the importance of scrupulous adherence to the §1404(a) factors in the determination of venue issues. In In re TS Tech, 2008 WL 5397522, at *1, the plaintiff filed suit for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas even though the key witnesses and the majority of relevant physical and documentary evidence were located in Ohio, Michigan and Canada. The district court denied the defendant’s motion to transfer to Ohio, relying heavily on the plaintiff’s choice of forum and the arguments that the Eastern District of Texas has a substantial interest in resolution of a dispute because accused products were sold in
that district. Id. Granting a writ of mandamus, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s decision was a misapplication of §1404(a) and constituted a clear abuse of discretion justifying the use of an extraordinary writ. Id. at *3-5. The Federal Circuit, noting that the Eastern District of Texas had no meaningful ties to the parties, ordered the case transferred to Ohio because the cost of willing witnesses’ attendance was considerably lower, the relative ease of access to sources of proof was higher, and the localized interest was much more significant there than in the Eastern District of Texas. Id. This Court in its original Order ruled that California, and not Texas, is the proper venue for the parties’ claims pursuant to the first-to-file rule and a correct analysis of the §1404(a) convenience factors. See Dkt. No. 61 at 6:6-15. The witnesses, evidence and localized interests in the present action remain centered in California. See id. The Defendants have not asserted and cannot assert that the ASUSTeK License significantly changes the convenience factors under 1404(a) that were the basis of the Court’s ruling. Moreover, the departure of one or more parties, or of one or more of the patents-in-suit, should not affect the § 1404(a) analysis. Otherwise, a party could easily manipulate these factors in order to control the Court’s venue decisions by settling out individual defendants or abandoning or asserting different patents. The Federal Circuit has expressly warned against such a danger. See Micron, 518 F.3d at 903 (“If, as in this case, a patent holder could simply name another defendant or add a few additional claims to the later filed infringement, then the Supreme Court’s more lenient standard for declaratory judgment plaintiff would lose its primary intended effect.”). Thus, there is no reason to deviate from this Court’s conclusion that the “convenience factors weigh heavily in favor of retaining the case in this Court.” Id. at 6:5-6. Indeed, TS Tech strongly suggests that any other conclusion would be an abuse of discretion. The Defendants’ suggested application of § 1404(a) would, in fact, result in its evisceration. Under the Defendants’ logic, a patentee could file a lawsuit in a favorable jurisdiction against one or more defendants, proceed through the claim construction phase, and then use that order as a basis to transfer all future lawsuits against different parties involving the same patents into that jurisdiction, regardless of the § 1404(a) factors, regardless of the accused parties’ connection to that jurisdiction, and regardless of whether that action is still pending. Such a result would be contrary to controlling Federal Circuit authority and should be avoided. B. The Reduction in the Number of Patents-in-Suit Is Not A Material New Fact that Warrants Reconsideration of the October 21 Order. Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2) requires that the moving party show “the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time” of the challenged order. This Court has strictly applied this requirement and routinely denies motions for reconsideration. See, e.g., U.S. v. Beardslee, No. CR-94-0186, 2008 WL 5382520, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2008); Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., No. C-06-5125, 2008 WL 5068676, at *1-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2008); Villalta v. Bardini, No. C-06-4087, 2008 WL 5000142, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008); Kilgore v. Walker, No. C-07-5124, 2008 WL 4561186, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2008); Tokuyama Corp. v. Vision Dynamics, LLC, No. C-08-2781, 2008 WL 4532565, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2008); Man Against Extinction v. Hall, No. C-08-01488, 2008 WL 4534279, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2008). The ASUSTeK License does not constitute a material new fact sufficient to warrant reversal of the October 21 Order under L.R. 7-9. To the contrary, as explained above, developments in the law since the Order have actually strengthened the grounds on which the
October 21 Order was based. Defendants have essentially argued that because the ASUSTeK License reduced the number of new patents at issue in the present and related actions from six to two, the weight to be given to the prior claim construction order is heightened. But this Court expressly acknowledged that it is free to consider the prior claim construction order and give whatever weight it is due. Dkt. No. 61 at 6:25-7:2. The Defendants’ motion overinflates the significance of a prior claim construction order in a dead lawsuit involving different accused parties and products.
1. There is No Support for Defendants’ Argument That Venue Must Reside With a Court That Has Previously Examined Patents-in-Suit. Defendants have cited absolutely no authority holding that prior claim construction of the patents-in-suit is a factor, much less a determinative factor, in a court’s analysis of whether to retain jurisdiction of a patent lawsuit. The Federal Circuit in Micron expressly held that the fact that another court “has heard cases involving some of the same patents…does not suggest a better forum in [that court].” 518 F.3d at 905. The ruling on this point in Micron does not leave room to conclude that a Markman ruling in a separate, closed matter involving different defendants and addressing a subset of terms of a subset of patents can override a proper transfer analysis. Defendants attempt to avoid application of the Micron ruling by representing that “MOSAID did not involve a situation where the patents at issue were previously studied and construed by another Court, as is now the case here.” Dkt. No. 71 at 6:10-11. This is completely false. Case records show that the majority of the twelve patents at issue in the MOSAID-Micron litigation were either previously construed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in a prior lawsuit between MOSAID and Infineon Technologies of North America (“the Infineon Action”), or derived from common parent applications as the previously construed patents. Compare Claim Construction Order, Infineon Technologies N. Am. Corp. v. MOSAID Technologies, Inc., No. 03-CV-4698 (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2004) and Micron’s First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, MOSAID Technologies, Inc. v. Micron Technologies, Inc., No. 5:06-CV-04496 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2008) The Federal Circuit panel issuing the Micron decision was clearly aware of the New Jersey court’s claim construction rulings. See Micron, 518 F.3d at 899-900 (referencing claim construction ruling in Infineon Action). This Court was also well aware of the New Jersey claim construction rulings. See Order Denying Joint Motion to Vacate at 2:11-13, Infineon Technologies N. Am. Corp. v. MOSAID Technologies, Inc., No. C:02-5772 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2007) (Fogel, J.) (describing the New Jersey Court’s claim construction order). Nevertheless, neither this Court nor the Federal Circuit addressed the prior claim construction ruling in the Infineon Action as having any bearing on the transfer analysis. There is no legal support for Defendants’ argument that a patent infringement action must be transferred to the court that previously construed a subset of the patents-in-suit. 2. Judicial Economy Would Not Be Enhanced By Dismissal or Transfer. Defendants’ arguments regarding any purported judicial economy are a rehash of the arguments raised in its original motion to dismiss, all of which were previously considered and rejected by the Court.3 Defendants’ recitation of claim terms in its motion for reconsideration is inapposite because there is no guarantee that the claim terms construed by Judge Ward will be the same terms that will be in dispute between the parties to the instant action and related actions. As explained above, the lawsuit underlying the Ward Claim Construction Order is dead, and not available for consolidation with the present action. In all likelihood, only one of the previously construed patents will be in serious contention in the present action since Defendants have not asserted the ‘584 patent and the ‘148 patent is scheduled to expire this year, and that remaining 3. This is a violation of Civil Local Rule 7-9(c): “No motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered. Any party who violates this restriction shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.” patent’s claims all presently stand rejected by the Patent and Trademark Office. See Chen Decl., Ex. B. The present litigation involves two patents that were never before Judge Ward and will raise factual and legal issues that have never been considered by him. Further, to the extent that this Court wishes to rely on the Ward Claim onstruction Order to enhance efficiency, it is free to do so. Judge Ward’s analysis and conclusions regarding the ’148 patent, the ’336 patent, and the ’584 patent remain available to this Court, and nothing prevents this Court from giving Judge Ward’s order the appropriate weight. Dkt. No. 61 at 6:25-7:2 (“While Judge Ward’s claim construction ruling is not res judicata, this Court certainly will consider it and give it whatever persuasive weight it deems appropriate.”). The ASUSTeK License does not change this. This conclusion is supported by ample competent precedents, including the October 21 Order. Numerous other courts have properly ruled that another court’s prior experience with common issues of fact or technology is not dispositive and does not by itself support a transfer. See Pall Corp. v. PTI Techs., Inc., 992 F. Supp. 196, 202 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (rejecting the “insinuation that this Court should transfer the suit to ‘avoid expending effort educat[ing itself] on both the technology in general and the particular patents’” because “the Court’s function in every case [is] to familiarize itself with the pertinent facts, data, technology and law”); Truth Hardware Corp. v. Ashland Products, Inc., No. C.A. 02-1541 GMS, 2003 WL 118005, *1 (D. Del. Jan. 13, 2003) (concluding that “[w]hile the court does not doubt that the Illinois court may be more familiar with the technology at this juncture, the present court is amply qualified to likewise familiarize itself”) The Texas Court’s prior (and by now, likely stale) experience with some of the patents in suit in the present actions does not constitute any more sufficient ground for transfer now than it did previously.
C. This Court Has Already Relied on the October 21 Order to Decide Important Procedural Issues. This Court has already relied on the October 21 Order to rule against HTC on an important discovery issue. Specifically, Judge Lloyd’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Depositions, dated December 16, 2008, relied on in part on the October 21 Order in concluding that HTC must produce its witnesses in this district. See Dkt. No. 68. Fairness militates against allowing the Defendants, who have relied upon the October 21 Order to their benefit, to request now that the Order be overturned.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, HTC respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.
Dated: January 21, 2009
WHITE & CASE LLP
By: Kyle D. Chen
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HTC CORPORATION and
HTC AMERICA, INC.
Optionen
| Boardmail an "marcourt" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
After getting calls/notes from several of you, and having gone to the
Agora board to see what all the fuss is about, it is good to see that
things are on the right track. I didn't have time to review all the
Agora posts in detail, but my recollection (corrections welcome) is
that the '336 claims were initially rejected (non-final) by the PTO
some time ago, which I have understood is pretty much the standard
expectation when a review is accepted based upon purported prior
art. Although no one knows the future, this certainly doesn't mean
that there will necessarily be a final rejection.
Having said the following on scores of occasions over the last few
years, it seems that few have chosen to listen --- so, I'll say
it again: Do not EVER taken what some lawyer says in a pleading at
face value. Because they are advocates, lawyers routinely "spin"
their recitations to what most favors their clients (which is
something many message board participants are fond of doing, thus my
confusion over why this is so difficult for some to understand). In
other words, just because some lawyer (even your own) states
something in a pleading, brief, etc., does not make it 100% accurate
or the equivalent of "gospel".
People would save themselves a great deal of stress if, before trying
to reach conclusions or going off the deep end, they would at least
wait until both/all sides involved in litigation have filed pleadings
on a given issue. Reacting to one-sided perspectives is no way to go
through life.
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’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE
Date: January 30, 2009
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: Courtroom 3, 5th Fl.
The Honorable Jeremy Fogel
I. INTRODUCTION
As this Court recognized, the settlement of the Asustek litigation (Case No. 08-0884 JF) and the elimination of defendant TPL’s CORE Flash patent portfolio (“CFP”) from this group of related cases may constitute a material change of facts justifying dismissal of the HTC and Acer actions, or transfer of these cases to Judge Ward in Texas. Cooper Decl., Exh. A [12/19 CMC Transcript] at 5:7-6:13. In particular, the remaining HTC and Acer cases (Case Nos. 08-0882 JF and 08-0877 JF, respectively) (collectively “California cases”) concern 5 patents in TPL’s Moore Microprocessor patent (“MMP”) portfolio, three of which were previously analyzed and construed by Judge Ward in the Eastern District of Texas in a prior litigation.1 Despite the clear benefits to judicial economy that would result from granting this motion, Acer ignored these interests in its Opposition, focusing instead on convenience arguments such as “Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, Defendants’ principal place of business, and access to witnesses and tangible evidence.” Opp. at 3:14-16; see also id. at 1:18-23. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, the law does not dictate steadfast adherence to the first-to-file rule, but requires consideration of a number of factors, including judicial economy. Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mosaid Techs., Inc., 518 F.3d 897, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2008). At best, application of the first-to-file analysis ends in a neutral result because TPL was first to file in Texas on two of the MMP patents (the ‘890 and ‘749 patents). The substantial investment of time and resources already expended by Judge Ward in issuing a 31- page opinion construing 33 terms found in 3 of the MMP patents tips the balance of factors in favor of dismissal or transfer of the cases to Texas. Indeed, the factors listed in Acer’s Opposition do not counteract or alter the fact that substantial judicial economy can be achieved by having these cases proceed in Texas. For the reasons set forth below, TPL respectfully requests the Court dismiss the HTC and Acer litigations, or in the alternative, transfer these cases to the Eastern District of Texas, in light of the emergence of these new material facts. 1 Similar to the Acer and HTC cases, the declaratory judgment plaintiff in Barco N.V. v. Technology Properties Ltd., Patriot Scientific Corp. and Alliacense Ltd., Case No. 08-05398 HRL (N.D. Cal., filed on December 1, 2008) has only asserted patents from TPL’s MMP portfolio. If the Court dismisses or transfers this action, TPL will likewise move to dismiss or transfer the Barco action as well. Opp. at 4, n.1
II. ARGUMENT
As Acer recites in its Opposition, this Court rejected TPL’s original judicial economy argument “because additional patents are at issue here, [thus] both parties will have to dedicate additional time and resources regardless of the forum in which the case ultimately is heard.” Docket No. 47 at 6:3-5; see also id. at 6:23-25. This Court specifically noted that the “Plaintiffs assert a total of nine patents; in the prior action before Judge Ward, only three of these patents were at issue.” Id. at 6:2-3. The resolution of the Asustek litigation has changed the landscape by eliminating all of the CFP patents from consideration. With only the MMP patents remaining, the HTC and Acer litigations bear great similarity to the prior Texas actions held before Judge Ward. Given Judge Ward’s familiarity with the technology at issue and his previous claim construction efforts on these MMP patents, dismissing the California cases in favor of the current TPL-Acer and TPL-HTC cases in Texas, or in the alternative, transferring the California cases to Texas, would save considerable judicial resources.
A. The First-to-File Rule Does Not Resolve the Venue Issue in this Case.
1. The First-to-File Rule Must Be Balanced with the Interests of Judicial Economy.
Acer urges this Court to strictly follow the “first-to-file” rule, arguing erroneously that the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Micron Technology, Inc. v. Mosaid Technologies, Inc. held that “it would be an ‘abuse of discretion’ to transfer a first-filed declaratory relief action to another district.” Opp. at 5:12-16. As this Court is aware, the Micron opinion did not announce any such steadfast rule. Instead, the Micron Court explicitly warned that “the first-filed suit rule, for example, will not always yield the most convenient and suitable forum” and advised the trial court to weigh the “suitability of competing forums.” 518 F.3d 897, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “In cases that involve a highly technical subject matter, such as patent litigation, judicial economy may favor transfer to a court that is already familiar with the issues involved in the case.” Zoltar Satellite Sys., Inc. v. LG Elecs. Mobile Comm. Co., 402 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (citing Regents of the Univ. of Calif. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). This is such a case. Many courts have properly dismissed or transferred pending cases to another district in the interest of judicial economy because the other district has a greater familiarity with the technology in the patents-in-suit, often as a result of having conducted a prior claim construction. In Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., the District Court for the District of Columbia transferred a patent case to avoid “squander[ing] judicial resources” because “The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker of the Northern District [of California] has already expended substantial time and effort to become familiar with the technology underlying the disputed patents, the prosecution of the patents, the record considered by the Patent Office in issuing the patents, and the legal issues related to the patents’ allegedly validity and infringement.” 104 F. Supp. 2d 48, 55 (D.D.C. 2000). Similarly, the Eastern District of Texas transferred the Logan Farms, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp. case to the Southern District of Texas because the trial court in the Southern District had previously construed the patent-in-suit on similar claims. 2004 WL 5216126, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2004). Finally, Judge Clark of the Eastern District of Texas transferred a patent dispute between LG Electronics and Hitachi to the Northern District of California because “Judge Wilken’s investment of judicial resources with these patents has been, and continues to be, substantial. Considerations of judicial economy and reduction of delay strongly favor transferring this case to the Northern District of California.” LG Elecs., Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., 2007 WL 4411035, at *3 (E.D. Tex. 2007). In contrast, the cases cited by Acer lack the compelling judicial economy interests that exist here. The Federal Circuit’s decision in In re TS Tech United States Corp. is inapposite as the Court was not faced with any facts relating to a prior lawsuit or previous claim construction conducted by another district court. 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26409 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2008). In Connectel, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Judge Davis refused to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because the other court had only construed two claims found in one of the four asserted patents. 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2252, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2005). Judge
Davis contrasted his opinion in Connectel with his decision in Logan Farms by pointing out that the trial judge in the first Logan Farms case had issued a much more comprehensive claim construction order and was more intimately familiar with the patent at issue. Id. at *10-11. As discussed in detail below, Judge Ward’s 31-page opinion in the first TPL case construing 33 claims across 3 of the same MMP patents bears much greater similarity to the comprehensive claim construction done in Logan Farms than the less substantial claim construction done in the first Connectel case. Just like the Logan Farms case, the HTC and Acer cases here in California should be transferred to Texas in the interest of judicial economy, or in the alternative, should be dismissed in favor of the pending HTC and Acer cases in Texas.
2. TPL Was First to File In Texas As To Two of the MMP Patents.
Application of the first to file rule, together with consideration of judicial economy, compels transfer of this action to Judge Ward in Texas. TPL was first to file on the ‘148 patent in its case against Acer and was first to file on the ‘890 patent in its cases against both Acer and HTC. Acer did not include those patents in its initial complaint in the present action. On April 25, 2008, TPL filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas asserting the ’148 patent against Acer, and on June 4, 2008, TPL filed additional suits in Texas asserting the ’890 patent against Acer and HTC. See Docket No. 41 [Fisher Decl. ISO Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss] at Exhs.
A-C. Meanwhile, HTC did not add the ‘890 patent to its California case until July 10, 2008, and Acer only now seeks to add the ‘148 and ‘890 patents in its pending motion for leave to file its amended complaint before this Court. If Acer’s first-to-file argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then by its argument, it would be “an abuse of discretion” to allow the claims from the ’148 and ’890 patents be heard here instead of in the first-filed district in Texas. Acer’s insistence that the plaintiff’s choice of forum be respected (Opp. at 3:14-16) leads to the impractical but inevitable conclusion that the ‘148 and ‘890 patents must be tried in Texas while the ‘336, ‘749, and ‘584 patents litigated in California. The TS Tech case cited by Acer does not offer guidance on this issue as the Court there was not faced with first-to-file issues. Thus, simply following the first-to-file rule does not resolve the venue issue in this case.
B. Judicial Economy in this Case Favors Dismissing the HTC and Acer Litigations, or in the Alternative, Transferring These Cases to Texas. Acer dismisses the judicial economy arguments by relying on the notion that the CFP patents were not asserted in the Acer case even though this Court has repeatedly considered the three related matters (the Asustek, HTC, and Acer litigations) together. Opp. at 3:2-11; 4:10-12. Acer’s position fails to recognize the practical reality that the remaining HTC and Acer litigations concern the same technology, many of the same patents, and the same patent family that was at issue in the previous Texas action. These similarities create undeniable interests of judicial economy that favor dismissal or transfer of these cases to Texas. The reasons warranting a transfer in this case are strikingly similar to the ones cited by Judge Davis of the Eastern District of Texas in Zoltar Satellite Sys., Inc. v. LG Elecs. Mobile Comm. Co. 402 F. Supp. 2d at 733. In that case, Zoltar previously asserted and litigated three related patents before Judge Ware of the Northern District of California. Id. Subsequently, Zoltar brought suit on the same three patents plus a fourth related patent against a different group of defendants in the Eastern District of Texas. Id. at 734. In opposing the motion to transfer the Texas case to California, Zoltar argued that (i) the accused technology was different, (ii) different claims and a new patent were involved, and that (iii) the trial court in Texas could simply refer to the previous claim construction order issued by Judge Ware. Id. at 736-37. Recognizing that “Judge Ware’s investment of time and effort with these patents has been, and continues to be, substantial” and “a duplication of his efforts would be wasteful of judicial resources and detrimental to judicial economy,” Judge Davis rejected each of Zoltar’s arguments and transferred the case to Judge Ware in the Northern District of California. Id. at 737. In particular, Judge Davis noted that three of patents in the Texas case were the same as those in the California case, and that the fourth patent was related the other three. Id. at 736. The Court further concluded that none of the claims asserted in the Texas case differed significantly from those in the California litigation. Id. Finally, Judge Davis emphasized the fact that Judge Ware had spent significant time reviewing the tutorials on the technology at issue and had construed twelve terms across the three patents. Id. at 735-37. In the HTC and Acer cases, three of five MMP patents (the ‘584, ‘148, and ‘336 patents) were previously litigated and construed by Judge Ward. The two additional patents—the ‘749 and ‘890 patents—claim priority back to the same application as the other three MMP patents, share similar specifications, and have many overlapping claim terms. In addition, many of the same claims that were first asserted in Texas are at issue here. Similar to Judge Ware in the Zoltar matter, Judge Ward expended substantial judicial resources in learning the highly technical microprocessor technology described in the MMP patents. Judge Ward absorbed complicated technology tutorials, pored over thousands of pages of file histories that spanned nearly nine years, and ultimately issued a 31-page opinion construing 33 terms. His knowledge of the MMP patents will expedite the claim construction efforts for any terms in dispute found in the ‘749 and ‘890 patents, and Judge Ward would only have to issue a limited second claim construction order construing the newly addressed terms. Indeed, Judge Ward’s efforts in the prior TPL case present an even more compelling case for dismissal or transfer because he construed nearly three times as many terms as Judge Ware did in the Zoltar case. In the words of Judge Davis, Judge Ward’s “significant investment of time and effort” with these MMP patents cannot be ignored, and “duplication of his efforts here would be wasteful of judicial resources and detrimental to judicial economy.” Because the first-to-file rule does not favor either side, the compelling judicial economy
interests definitively tip the balance of factors in favor of transferring the Acer and HTC cases to Texas.
C. The Remaining Convenience Factors Do Not Weigh Heavily in Favor of Keeping the Acer and HTC Cases in California. In order to avoid directly addressing the judicial economy interests presented by transferring these cases to Texas, Acer over-emphasizes the alleged strength of convenience factors such as access to witnesses and tangible evidence and the parties’ places of business to persuade this Court to retain these cases. However, Acer omits several material facts which suggest that the convenience factors do not weigh heavily in favor of keeping these cases in California. First, Acer Inc. is a foreign company based in Taiwan, and its witnesses and documents will have travel from Taiwan regardless of whether the cases are venued in California or in Texas. Acer has not represented that its witnesses would be unable or unwilling to travel to Texas for trial testimony. Also, Acer America and Gateway maintain their national customer service facility in Temple, Texas, demonstrating that the plaintiffs conduct significant commerce in Texas and undermining the plaintiffs’ argument that the Texas courts are inconvenient. Acer has also initiated suit in both the Eastern District of Texas and the Western District of Wisconsin, both actions which are currently pending. See Docket No. 41 [Fisher Decl. ISO Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss] at Exhs. H & I. In addition, Acer has admitted that the Eastern District of Texas is the proper venue in at least 5 currently pending patent cases. See Cooper Decl., Exhs. BF. Finally, as recognized in the ICU Medical case cited by Acer, “with respect to the location of records and other documents, and access to design prototypes, the technological advances of recent years have significantly reduced the weight of this factor in the Court’s analysis, because they have substantially reduc[ed] the burden of litigating in a distant forum.” 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 4983, at *9-10 (D. Del. Jan. 23, 2008); see also Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank, 503 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1364 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“With technological advances in document storage and retrieval, transporting documents does not generally create a burden.”). In light of these facts and those raised in TPL’s original Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue (Docket No. 19), the convenience factors do not weigh heavily in favor of keeping these cases in California.
III. CONCLUSION
As demonstrated above, the first-to-file rule advocated by Acer fails to resolve the venue issue, and the compelling judicial economy interests tip the balance of factors in favor of dismissal or transfer of venue to Judge Ward of the Eastern District of Texas. Thus, TPL respectfully requests the Court dismiss the HTC and Acer litigations, or in the alternative, transfer these cases to Judge Ward.
Dated: January 28, 2009
FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendants
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1055480#message
New Pacer--UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (Not Sig
posted on Jan 29, 09 09:40PM
New Pacer--UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (Not Signed Judge Jeremy Fogel)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORP.,
and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Date: January 30, 2009
Time: 9:00 AM
Dept.: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
Judge: Honorable Jeremy Fogel
This Updated Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order is submitted by the Parties in the above captioned related actions. Pursuant to conferences between counsel conducted on January 26 and January 28, 2009 and in preparation for the Case Management Conference currently set for January 30, 2009, 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 Updated Joint
Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order.
I. UPDATED SCHEDULING
Should the Court keep jurisdiction of this matter and deny Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and grant Defendants’ motion for leave to amend, the parties propose that the Court adopt the following, updated schedule based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, Patent Local Rules, and the conferences between the parties held on January 26 and 28, 2009. 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 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 schedule presented by the Plaintiffs in the related actions. Defendants believe the below schedule should govern this action. The parties’ proposed schedule is below: EVENT DATE / RULE (if applicable) Last Day to Serve Initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions (and related documents) for ‘890 and ‘148 patents If the case remains in this jurisdiction and the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, 7 days after the Court issues an order denying Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration
(P.L.R. 3-1, 3-2) EVENT DATE / RULE (if applicable) Last Day to Serve Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (and related documents) for ‘749, ‘336, ‘890, and ‘148 patents 14 days after Defendants serve their Patent L.R. 3-1 and 3-2 contentions for the ‘890 and ‘148 patents (P.L.R. 3-3, 3-4) Last Day to Exchange List of “Proposed Terms and Claim Elements for Construction” 10 days after Plaintiffs serve their Patent L.R. 3-3 and 3-4 Contentions (P.L.R. 4-1) Last Day to Exchange “Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence” 20 days after the parties’ Patent L.R. 4-1 Exchanges (P.L.R. 4-2) Last Day to File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement 30 days after the parties’ Patent L.R. 4-2 Exchanges (P.L.R. 4-3) Claim Construction Discovery Closes 30 days after the parties file the Patent L.R. 4-3 Statement (P.L.R. 4-4) Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief 45 days after filing of Patent L.R. 4-3 Statement (P.L.R. 4-5a) Plaintiffs’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief 14 days after filing of Defendants Opening claim construction brief (P.L.R. 4-5b) Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief 7 days after filing of Plaintiffs’ responsive claim construction brief (P.L.R. 4-5c) 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) EVENT DATE / RULE (if applicable) 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; Defendants request a trial date for during the 1st quarter of 2010 Plaintiffs request a trial date no earlier than summer of 2010. Consistent with the parties' joint position in the previous CMC statement, Defendants request a trial date in the first quarter of 2010 and believe that this date provides an adequate period for all the necessary discovery in this case. Plaintiffs request a trial date no earlier than the summer of 2010. Plaintiffs believe that there will be substantial third party discovery as Plaintiffs do not manufacture any of the alleged microprocessors at issue, most of this discovery will have to occur abroad, there should be time in the schedule to adjust for unforeseen circumstances and commitments of the parties, and under the current agreed upon schedule, the earliest that a trial date could be set is May or June 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Hal Davis
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ John L. Cooper
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Attorney for Defendants
Pursuant to the above Joint Case Management Statement, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ____________, 2009
Honorable Jeremy Fogel
United States District Judge
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/...=4&RcvdDate=1%2F30%2F2009&pdf=
Der Mann sollte doch wissen warum 
Schönes Wochenende
CJ
posted on Feb 02, 09 04:14PM
CUPERTINO, Calif. – 2 Feb. 2009 -- Today Alliacense announced that the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht, BPatG) in Munich affirmed the validity of DE 6,903,356 8T2, the German counterpart to EP 0,786,730.
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 50 global companies from the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have licensed the MMP Portfolio technologies, including many industry leaders such as Fujitsu, Hewlett Packard, Kenwood, Mattel, Nokia, Philips, Sony and Toshiba.
The MMP Portfolio patents, filed by The TPL Group in the 1980s, cover techniques that enable higher performance and lower cost designs, and are fundamental to consumer and commercial digital systems ranging from DVD players, cell phones and portable music players to communications infrastructure, medical equipment -- and automobiles which today have dozens of microprocessor-based key features and benefits.
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.
Alliacense Contact: Kelly Williams at (408) 446-4222
CUPERTINO, Calif. – Feb. 2, 2009. Alliacense today announced that Royal Philips Electronics has purchased a CORE Flash™ Portfolio license from The TPL Group. Philips becomes the ninth company to purchase a CORE Flash license.
About the CORE Flash Portfolio
The CORE Flash Portfolio contains intellectual property that was developed and productized by The TPL Group’s OnSpec Division. The portfolio includes 21 U.S. and international patents and 18 patent applications. CORE Flash Portfolio innovations protect key aspects of flash memory management and control, including software, firmware, hardware, and mechanical designs.
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.
CORRECTING and REPLACING German Court Affirms Validity of MMP Portfolio Patent
CORRECTING and REPLACING German Court Affirms Validity of MMP Portfolio PatentCUPERTINO, Calif.CQN-CA-ALLIACENSE
CUPERTINO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
Please replace the release with the following corrected version due to multiple revisions.
The corrected release reads:
GERMAN COURT AFFIRMS VALIDITY OF MMP PORTFOLIO PATENT
Today Alliacense announced that the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht, BPatG) in Munich affirmed the validity of DE 6,903,356 8T2, the German counterpart to EP 0,786,730. The affirmed German Patent and its EP counterparts cover technology utilized in a majority of microprocessor-based products manufactured and sold today. EP'730 is the European counterpart of the basic MMP Portfolio application filed in 1989, which resulted in seven issued US patents, four of which remain the subject of on-going patent suits between The TPL Group and several non-US companies.
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 50 global companies from the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have licensed the MMP Portfolio technologies, including many industry leaders such as Fujitsu, Hewlett Packard, Kenwood, Mattel, Nokia, Philips, Sony and Toshiba.
The MMP Portfolio Technology developed by The TPL Group in the 1980s, covers designs that enable higher performance and lower cost designs, and are fundamental to consumer and commercial digital systems ranging from DVD players, cell phones and portable music players to communications infrastructure, medical equipment -- and automobiles which today have dozens of microprocessor-based key features and benefits.
auf Deine Fragen will ich Dir gern meine bescheidene Meinung, die sich auf langjährige Erfahrung mit Patentverfahren gründet, schreiben.
„wenn München mit deutscher Gründlichkeit geprüft hat ist die Meldung ein Meilenstein.“
Darin stimme ich Dir vollumfänglich zu, denn ich weiß aus eigenen Verfahren, dass die Anmeldungen, die deutsche Prüfer bearbeiten und die für patentwürdig erachtet werden, in der Regel dann in weiteren Schritten z.B. vom Europäischen Patentamt so bestätigt werden.
Das bedeutet folglich natürlich weiterhin, dass das amerikanische Patentamt nicht einfach so über den Prüfungsbericht hinweg gehen kann. Im Übrigen habe ich aus verschiedensten anderen Gründen an der Bestätigung der Patente sowieso nicht gezweifelt. Dass das deutsche Patentamt schneller ist, liegt wohl schlicht daran, dass der Prüfer sich nicht wie seine amerikanischen Kollegen andauernd mit zuletzt schon haarsträubenden Einwürfen und Argumenten der Gegenseite auseinandersetzen muss.
„Lässt sich mit der Bestätigung in Deutschland, durch eine amerikanische Firma auch der Systemimplmenentierer in Deutschland verklagen oder nur der Chiphersteller.“
Ein Inhaber eines bestätigten Patentes ist in jedem Fall in dem Land, auf das sich dass Schutzrecht erstreckt, jegliche Herstellung oder Vertrieb das Patent verletzender Produkte zu verbieten bzw. in diesem Fall dafür Lizenzen zu fordern.
„Sind die Patente in Deutsch oder Englisch in München hinterlegt.“
Das habe ich nicht recherchiert, gehe aber davon aus, dass sie in deutsch hinterlegt sind, da sie in die jeweilige Landessprache, falls als nationales Schutzrecht angemeldet, übersetzt werden müssen.
„Stimmen sich die Patentämter weltweit ab in Ihrer Recherche "Prior Art"“
„Prior Art“ – „Stand der Technik“ ist nicht eine Frage der „Abstimmung“ untereinander, sondern eine Frage der Offensichtlichkeit, d.h., wenn es beispielsweise eine Säge mit Zähnen auf der Vorder- und Rückseite des Blattes schon mal irgendwann gegeben hat, kann kein Patent darüber in der Zukunft mehr erteilt werden. Und das gilt nach internationalem Recht für Timbuktu bzw. Mali, Japan oder USA gleichermaßen. Natürlich ist „Prior Art“ eine Frage des Verständnisses und nicht immer so einfach zu erkennen, wie in dem Sägebeispiel, aber ich gehe davon aus, der ursprünglichen Erteilung der Patente, der Bestätigung jetzt durch das dt. Patentamt und den letzten und früheren Argumenten der Gegenseite nach zu urteilen, dass in unserem Fall eine Bestätigung durch das USPTO nur eine Frage der Zeit ist.
Ich wünsche Dir und allen anderen Patrioten (ob echt oder unecht) ebenfalls einen schönen Tag.
Ungenannt
· Monday February 2, 2009, 4:15 pm EST
CARLSBAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB:PTSC - News) today announced that the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht, BPatG) in Munich affirmed the validity of DE 6,903,356 8T2, the German counterpart to EP 0,786,730. The affirmed German Patent and its EP counterparts cover technology utilized in a majority of microprocessor-based products manufactured and sold today. EP'730 is the European counterpart of the basic MMP Portfolio application filed in 1989, which resulted in seven issued U.S. patents.
The world's leading manufacturers of end user products are encouraged to become MMP Portfolio licensees because of the sweeping scope of applications using MMP Portfolio design techniques. Industry leaders including Toshiba, Sony, Philips, Nokia, Mattel, Kenwood, Hewlett-Packard and Fujitsu are among the 50 global companies from the U.S., Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Europe that have licensed the MMP Portfolio technologies for products ranging from automobiles to medical equipment, cell phones to communications infrastructure.
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 - News). 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 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.
Contact:
Patriot Scientific Corporation
Angela Hartley
760/547-2700 ext. 102
Small Article Headline
Vivamus et sapien. Duis sit amet massa. Morbi viverra. Fusce facilisis. Donec eleifend consequat nisl. Nullam et turpis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Nulla facilisi. Fusce convallis ante sit amet elit. Donec iaculis. Sed mattis. Nam vel urna. Aenean augue. Curabitur non ipsum.
Patriot Scientific Announces Portfolio License Agreement with Rockwell Automation
Patriot Scientific Corp. PTSC today announced that Rockwell Automation ROK has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio license from The TPL group, Patriot Scientific’s exclusive licensing agent. It is the 16th MMP Portfolio license purchase in 2008 and 51st overall MMP licensee.
Infos aus dem Netz zum Deutschen / europäischen Patent
Re: Here's the German Patent
in response to Here's the German Patent by optymystic
posted on Feb 03, 09 06:56PM
Try This.
German Patent and Trade Mark Office
Query started: 04.02.2009 00:43:54
File number DE: 690 33 568.7
File number EP: 97 20 0767.8
Publication number EP: 0786730
SG01 - Short overview:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
02.08.90 Anmeldetag
Die Anmeldung ist anhängig/das Schutzrecht ist in Kraft
Letzter Stand des Verfahrens:
22.06.07 (BPG) Vorlage beim BPatG
mit Aktenzeichen 2 Ni 36/07(EU)
Erfassungsdatum: 10.07.2007
SG11 - Publication:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Angaben zur EPA-Anmeldung/-Patent
04.09.97 Veröffentlichung eines Hinweises auf die EP-Erstver-
öffentlichung durch DPMA
20.07.00 Veröffentlichung eines Hinweises auf die EP-Erteilung
durch DPMA
01.03.01 Übersetzung der europäischen Patentschrift
SG21 - Course of the procedure (with history):
( english language information on displayed German texts)
30.07.97 EP-Erstveröffentlichung (Veröffentlichung der Anmeldung
durch EPA)
14.06.00 EPA-Veröffentlichung des Hinweises auf Patent-
erteilung (Beginn der Einspruchsfrist)
14.03.01 (ERT1) Gegen die Patenterteilung wurde kein Einspruch erhoben,
bzw. Einspruchsverfahren ist beim EPA ohne Entscheidung
abgeschlossen
22.06.07 (NIT1) Klage auf Erklärung der Nichtigkeit erhoben
22.06.07 (BPG) Vorlage beim BPatG
Die Akte ist/war beim BPatG bzw bei der Gebrauchs-
musterabteilung mit folgenden Aktenzeichen:
2 Ni 36/07(EU)
SG23 - division in charge:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Patentabteilung : 08
SG25 - Fees due:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Nächste fällige Jahresgebühr: 20. / 31.08.2009
SG41 - Main classes (with history):
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Int. Klasse (Stand) ..: (08) G06F 15/78 (2006.01)
eingetragen: 17.10.05
Int. Klasse (Stand) ..: (07) G06F 15/78 (2000.01)
eingetragen: 28.04.00
Int. Klasse (Stand) ..: (06) G06F 15/78 (1995.01)
eingetragen: 13.06.97
SG45 - Abstract:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Zusammenfassung vorhanden und veröffentlicht, jedoch nicht im DV-Bestand
SG51 - Bibliographic data:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Bezeichnung:
Preisgünstiger Hochleistungsmikroprozessor
SG52 - Priorities:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Priorität(en)
03.08.89 Unions-Priorität (aus Pat/Gbm) Land: US Akz: 389334
SG53 - Applicant (with history):
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Anmelder/Inhaber: Anzahl der Änderungen: 0001
Angegeben am 21.05.02
Moore, Charles H., Woodside, Calif., US; Patriot Scientific Corp., Poway,
Calif., US
Angegeben am 02.08.90
Moore, Charles H., Woodside, Calif., US; Fish, Russell H., Mountain View,
Calif., US
SG55 - Representative:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Vertreter:
Angegeben am 14.08.07
Strehl, Schübel-Hopf & Partner, 80538 München
SG58 - Inventor:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Erfinder
Moore, Charles H., Woodside, Calif., US; Fish, Russell H., Mountain View,
Calif., US;
SG61 - EPO application:
( english language information on displayed German texts)
Angaben zur EPA-Anmeldung/-Patent
02.08.90 Internationaler Anmeldetag
30.07.97 EP-Erstveröffentlichung (Veröffentlichung der Anmeldung
durch EPA)
30.07.97 Veröffentlichung des Recherchenberichts durch EPA
Veröffentlichungssprache beim EPA: EN
04.09.97 Veröffentlichung eines Hinweises auf die EP-Erstver-
öffentlichung durch DPMA
14.06.00 EPA-Veröffentlichung der EP-Erteilung (Patentschrift)
20.07.00 Veröffentlichung eines Hinweises auf die EP-Erteilung
durch DPMA
13.09.00 Übersetzung der europäischen Patentschrift eingegangen
Benannte Vertragsstaaten: DE FR GB IT NL