Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
CUPERTINO, Calif. -- Alliacense, a TPL 1. TPL - Table Producing Language. "The Bureau of Labor Statistics Table Producing Language (TPL)", R.C. Mendelssohn, Proc ACM Annual Conf (1974).
2. TPL - Fleming Nielson. A concurrent functional language.
3. Group Enterprise, today appointed Andre-Pascal Chauvin Vice President, Licensing with primary responsibility for implementing licensing programs in Europe and managing the newly established Alliacense office in Paris. Chauvin brings extensive intellectual property (IP) management experience to his new post including 18 years with Alcatel Group (now Alcatel-Lucent) where for the past seven years he served as Vice President responsible for the global IPR IPR Intellectual Property Rights
IPR Inprocess/Inprogress Review
IPR Industrial Property Rights
IPR Institute for Policy Research (Northwestern University and University of Cincinnati)
IPR Institute of Public Relations Strategy and Valorization val·or·ize
tr.v. val·or·ized, val·or·iz·ing, val·or·iz·es
1. To establish and maintain the price of (a commodity) by governmental action.
2. Department.
Commenting on the appointment, TPL Group Chairman Dan Leckrone said, "Our Alliacense team continues to attract world-class talent with successful track records in establishing, building, and demonstrating the value of IP Assets in technology-based industries. We're confident that Pascal will effectively spearhead the expansion of our IP licensing programs in Europe, while supporting our worldwide activities in London, Lugano, Vienna and Sofia as well as in Taipei, Taiwan and Chennai, India."
The appointment of Chauvin and establishment of the Alliacense office in Paris reflect the growing global interest in TPL's Technology Portfolios. According to according to
prep.
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
2. In keeping with: according to instructions.
3. Mike Davis, Alliacense Senior Vice President of Licensing, the overwhelming advantages of TPL's Technology Portfolios continue to attract major companies around the world. He noted that since January 2006, HP, Casio, Fujitsu, Sony, Nikon, Seiko Epson Seiko Epson Corporation (セイコーエプソン株式会社, , Pentax, Olympus, Kenwood, Agilent, Lexmark, Schneider Electric Schneider Electric (Euronext: SCHN) is a French global company. It was founded in 1836 by two brothers, Joseph and Adolphe Schneider, who took over a troubled foundry at Le Creusot. , NEC (NEC Corporation, Tokyo, www.nec.com, www.necus.com) An electronics conglomerate known in the U.S. for its monitors. In Japan, it had the lion's share of the PC market until the late 1990s (see PC 98).
NEC was founded in Tokyo in 1899 as Nippon Electric Company, Ltd. Corporation, Funai Electric, SanDisk and, most recently, Sharp Corporation have all purchased licenses to use TPL Technology Portfolios managed by Alliacense.
During Chauvin's last 11 years at Alcatel, he served in key management positions, initially as Secretary General of Alcatel Labs, the French subsidiary of Alcatel Telecom. In developing the IPR Strategy and Valorization Department to include 15 experts in marketing, patents and negotiations, he implemented strategies to maximize the value of Alcatel's IP assets including approximately 17,000 patents and applications. Accordingly, he was instrumental in generating substantial licensing revenue, and refocusing Noun 1. refocusing - focusing again
focalisation, focalization, focusing - the act of bringing into focus the IP Group on business value while he also engaged several strategic litigations resulting in major benefits for Alcatel. Earlier in his career, Chauvin served as CFO See Chief Financial Officer. for three subsidiaries of the Alstrom Group and as Deputy Director for SPIE-Batignolles Civil Engineering. Chauvin is a Board member of the Licensing Executive Society in France and regularly participates as a speaker and instructor in international licensing seminars. A former Labour Court Magistrate in the Paris area, he holds degrees in Finance and Economy from Institut Etudes Politiques de Paris.
About Alliacense
Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of intellectual property 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 intellectual property 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 MMP Matrix Metalloproteinase (enzymes related to tissue healing/remodeling and cancer cell metastasis)
MMP Mixed Member Proportional (New Zealand electoral system)
MMP Multi-man Publishing ) are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Business Wire
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/...e+President+to+Manage...-a0162324609
[patriot_scientific] Re PACERs posted on Agora by Wolf
The ruling on the first item concerns an attempt by Acer and Gateway to
add two of the MMP patents to their dec actions. Judge Fogel has
allowed this, mainly, it appears, because the two patents sought to be
added were already a part of the dec actions filed by HTC and Asustek.
In essence, this is largely a housekeeping matter, especially during
the early phases of a case. Nothing of any real substance here.
The second PACER is a denial by Judge Fogel of TPL's motion to
reconsider the transfer to Texas. In other words, the effect is that
the cases filed in CA will stay there. As I mentioned some weeks ago
in another post here, the issue boiled down to a consideration of
the "first to file" rule versus the (my term) "already familiar" rule.
Judge Fogel ruled that the latter was not strong enough under these
circumstances to warrant transfer. Bottom line: The T3 cases will
stay in CA. Bottom line to the bottom line: Look for Judge Ward to
now order the TX cases to either be dismissed, or transferred to CA
(same net effect). Theoretically, as I also mentioned previously, Ward
could disagree with Fogel and keep the TX cases in Marshall --- but
that would create incredible conflict requiring appellate resolution.
As practical matter, it ain't gonna happen.
I did find it interesting that Judge Fogel chose to comment on the
prior Markman ruling by Ward, stating the following: "As to the second
factor, this Court affirms its earlier statement that it will accord
deference to Judge Ward's claim construction as persuasive authority."
I had also predicted this as well, and have mentioned it in posts here
as well as to many of you in phone conversations and/or emails. Please
note that Fogel says "persuasive", NOT "binding", authority --- in
other words, he will read and consider it, but may or may not abide by
it.
Hope this helps. Best wishes to all.
was dabei rauskommt wissen die götter.
fakt ist, nur ein urteil, wie z.bspl. das des bpa kann helfen.
bis dahin setze ich auf dax 30 werte !
und mit bmw bin ich schon richtig im plus :-)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. and ASUS Case No. C 0800884 JF
COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, (related to C 08 00877 JF and C 08 00882)
Plaintiffs, STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2) AND IPROPOSEDI ORDER THEREON TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER WHEREAS all matters in controversy between plaintiffs ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and Asus Computer International (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and defendants Technology Properties limited, Patriot Scientific Corporation, MCM Portfolio, LLC, and Alliacense Limited (collectively, “Defendants”) have been settled; WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate, and respectfully request that the Court order, as follows:
(1) All claims asserted by Plaintiffs and all counterclaims asserted by Defendants in this action shall be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)
(2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) does not apply to the dismissal of this action nor to the dismissal of the pending and related actions in the Eastern District of Texas (case nos. 2:08-cv- 174, 175, 177, and 227); and (3) All attorneys’ fees and costs shall be borne by the party that incurred them. IT IS SO STIPULATED.
WHITE & CASE LLP
By: Is!
Mark R. Weinstein
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NIXON PEABODY LLP
By: /sI
Ronald F. Lopez
Attorneys forTECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, and
ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge
By: /s/
Charles H. Hoge
Attorneys for PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1065167#message
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendant.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
[Assigned to Honorable Jeremy Fogel]
Plaintiffs Acer, Inc. (“Acer”), Acer America Corporation (“Acer America”) and Gateway, Inc. (“Gateway”) collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, allege as follows:
1. This is a civil action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 101, et seq., seeking a declaratory judgment that no valid and enforceable claim of United States Patent Numbers 5,809,336 (“‘336 patent”); 5,784,584 (“‘584 patent”); 5,440,749 (“‘749 patent”); 6,598,148 (“‘148 patent”), and/or 5,530,890 (“‘890 patent”) (collectively the “patents-in-suit”) are infringed by Plaintiffs.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Acer is a Taiwan corporation with its principal place of business in Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
3. Plaintiff Acer America is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Jose, California.
4. Plaintiff Gateway is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California. Gateway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acer.
5. Defendant Technology Properties Ltd. (“TPL”) is, on information and belief, a California corporation with its principal place of business in Cupertino, California. On information and belief, TPL is a co-owner of the patents-in-suit.
6. Defendant Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”) is, on information and belief, incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Carlsbad, California. On information and belief, Patriot is a co-owner of the patents-in-suit.
7. Defendant Alliacense Ltd. (“Alliacense”) is, on information and belief, a California corporation with its principal place of business in Cupertino, California. On information and belief, Alliacense is responsible for negotiating possible licenses to the patents-in-suit with third parties, on behalf of TPL.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. The Plaintiffs file this complaint against TPL, Patriot and Alliacense (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, with a specific remedy sought based upon the laws authorizing actions for declaratory judgment in the federal courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, which arises under the patent laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 2201.
10. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b) because, on information and belief, Defendants are corporations subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and, on information and belief, TPL and Alliacense maintain their principal place of business in this District.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
11. This action is properly filed in the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California because Defendants reside, or do business, in this district.
EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY
12. There is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
13. Beginning in or about 2006, and continuing thereafter, Alliacense has repeatedly demanded that Plaintiffs enter into a royalty-bearing license for the patents-in-suit. Alliacense has claimed that certain products of Plaintiffs are infringed by one or more claims of the patents-in-suit, and has told Plaintiffs that if they do not take a license to the patents-in-suit, Plaintiffs may be subject to substantial liabilities. Alliacense’s allegations have included claim charts purporting to describe how certain products of Plaintiffs allegedly infringe one or more claims of the patents-in-suit.
14. Alliacense and Plaintiffs met numerous times during the fourteen months preceding the filing of the complaint in this matter to discuss a possible license, with the most recent meeting having taken place on January 20, 2008. Throughout this period, Alliacense consistently threatened Plaintiffs and demanded that they take a license to the patents-in-suit. For example, during the January 20, 2008 meeting, the Senior Vice President of Licensing of Alliacense, Mr. Mark Davis, told representatives of Plaintiffs that they would be risking a patent infringement lawsuit if Plaintiffs failed to enter into a licensing agreement.
15. Although Plaintiffs and Alliacense have repeatedly discussed the possibility of a license of the patents-in-suit, the parties have been unable to reach any agreement. On February 6, 2008, Mr. Davis sent Plaintiffs an email expressing frustration with the status of the negotiations and the parties’ inability to work out an agreement. Mr. Davis concluded his e-mail by inquiring “if Acer still has an interest in resolving this matter outside of the court and if so, how [it] would like to proceed.”
16. Based upon the above facts, there is an actual and justiciable controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.
FIRST CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘336 PATENT
17. The Plaintiffs hereby restate and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 16 and incorporate them by reference.
18. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘336 patent is infringed by the Plaintiffs.
SECOND CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘584 PATENT
19. The Plaintiffs hereby restate and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 and incorporate them by reference.
20. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘584 patent is infringed by the Plaintiffs.
THIRD CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘749 PATENT
21. The Plaintiffs hereby restate and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 and incorporate them by reference.
22. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘749 patent is infringed by the Plaintiffs.
FOURTH CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘148 PATENT
23. The Plaintiffs hereby restate and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 and incorporate them by reference.
24. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘148 patent is infringed by the Plaintiffs.
FIFTH CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘890 PATENT
25. The Plaintiffs hereby restate and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 and incorporate them by reference.
26. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘890 patent is infringed by the Plaintiffs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
1. Declaring that no valid and enforceable claim of the patents-in-suit is infringed by the Plaintiffs;
2. Declaring that defendants and each of their officers, employees, agents, alter egos, attorneys, and any persons in active concert or participation with them be restrained and enjoined from further prosecuting or instituting any action against the Plaintiffs claiming that the patents-insuit are valid, enforceable, or infringed, or from representing that the products or services of the Plaintiffs infringe the patents-in-suit;
3. A judgment declaring this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding the Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this case;
4. Awarding the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 9, 2009 K&L GATES LLP
By: /s/ Harold H. Davis
Timothy P. Walker (SBN 105001)
Harold H. Davis, Jr. (SBN 235552)
Holly Hogan (SBN 238714)
Jas Dhillon (SBN 252842)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and
GATEWAY, INC
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1065207#message
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, §
ET AL.
V. CIVIL NO. 2:08-CV-172(TJW)
HTC CORPORATION, ET AL.
O R D E R
This case is set for a status conference in Marshall, Texas, on February 27, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable T. John Ward and the Honorable Chad Everingham. The purpose of the conference will be to assign a claim construction hearing date and a trial setting. The parties shall be prepared to inform the Court whether they will consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge. The parties shall submit their proposed docket control and discovery orders to the court on March 13, 2009. If the parties are unable to resolve their disagreements concerning these orders, the parties shall submit to the court their competing proposals along with a summary of their disagreements. For purposes of computing the time deadlines under the local patent rules, the court deems March 30, 2009 to be the date of the initial case management conference. As a result, the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions” is due on March 16, 2009.
(Signed by Judge Ward)
Signed by Judge Ward
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1065218#message
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Jury Demanded.
HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC. and ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC.
Defendants.
JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(2)
COME NOW Plaintiffs, Technology Properties Limited and Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Defendant, ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., and respectfully move the Court to dismiss this cause of action between them, without prejudice, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2).1 In order to prevent the operation of FRCP 41(a)(I)(B), the parties seek dismissal by court order. The parties also stipulate to dismiss, without prejudice, the similar action pending in the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:08-CV-00884). In support, the parties respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
All matters in controversy between Plaintiffs, Technology Properties Limited and Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Defendant, ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., have been settled and compromised, and these parties jointly move to dismiss all causes of action asserted or which could have been asserted in this suit, without prejudice. These parties further move that all costs of court be assessed against the party who incurred them. 1 This Motion does not apply to the other defendants, HTC Corporation and HTC America. All claims by Plaintiffs against HTC Corporation and HTC America shall remain in place. Case 2:08-cv-00174-TJW Document 35 Filed 02/10/2009 Page 1 of 4 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, these parties jointly pray that this motion be granted and that all causes of action asserted or which could have been asserted in this suit, be dismissed without prejudice and that all costs of court be assessed against the party who incurred them.
Dated: February 10, 2009 Of Counsel:
Ronald F. Lopez
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1065230#message
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) ACER, INC.
(2) ACER AMERICA CORPORATION
(3) GATEWAY, INC.
Defendants.
Jury Trial Demanded
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule Civ. P. 41(a)(I)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby notices the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of this action against defendants Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. Each side to bear their own fees and costs.
Dated: February 12, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
By: lsi Elizabeth L. DeRieux
S. Calvin Capshaw
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 12th day of February, 2009, with a copy of this document via the Court's CMlECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date.
Elizabeth L. DeRieux
Quelle:
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
Dort "Worte" eingeben, bei Application-Number "90008225" eingeben, auf "Image File Wrapper" gehen und den "REM" mit 4 Seiten öffnen.
Mein Bild zeigt den letzten Absatz.
Angehängte Grafik:
584.jpg (verkleinert auf 44%)
584.jpg (verkleinert auf 44%)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED and PATRIOT
SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
HTC CORPORATION and HTC
AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS HTC CORPORATION’S AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S NOTICE OF
COURT ACTION IN RELATED MATTER TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD: Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively “HTC”) respectfully submit this Notice of Court Action to bring to the Court’s attention the recent decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed February 4, 2009, in HTC Corp. et. al. v. Technology Properties Ltd. et. al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 08-882 (Hon. Jeremy Fogel). In that decision, Judge Fogel denied the motion by Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”) for reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision denying TPL’s motion to transfer that action to this district. A copy of the decision is attached as Exhibit A. On December 1, 2008, HTC filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer the present litigation in light of the above-referenced, first-filed California action involving identical parties and the same patents-in-suit. Docket No. 20. TPL’s opposition to HTC’s motion relied entirely on TPL’s motion for reconsideration then-pending in the Northern District of California to argue that a ruling on HTC’s motion should be deferred. See Docket No. 25 at 1-2 (“In light of the fact that the California Action may be transferred to this Court, HTC’s Motion to Dismiss Case is premature, and this Court should deny the Motion until Judge Fogel reconsiders his decision about whether to transfer the case to this Court.”). TPL’s opposition all but concedes that Judge Fogel’s ruling on TPL’s motion for reconsideration is fully determinative of HTC’s motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth in the attached decision, and in HTC’s opening and reply briefs filed in support of the pending motion to dismiss and/or transfer, HTC respectfully requests that its motion be granted.1
Dated: February 13, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
/s/Deron R. Dacus
William Sloan Coats
Kyle D. Chen
WHITE & CASE LLP
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on February 13, 2009. Any other counsel of record will be served via facsimile transmission and first class mail.
Deron R. Dacus
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) ACER, INC.
(2) ACER AMERICA CORPORATION
(3) GATEWAY, INC.
Defendants.
Jury Trial Demanded
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Upon consideration of the attached Notice of Dismissal filed by Plaintiffs Technology Properties Limited and Patriot Scientific Corporation in connection with claims of patent infringement filed against defendants Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation and Gateway, Inc., it is hereby ORDERED that all claims asserted against defendants Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation and Gateway, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.
Signed by Judge Ward
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1068482#message
zum besseren Verständnis die Links der SEC Filings aus den letzen Jahren: 2009: http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/...A&RcvdDate=2%2F17%2F2009&pdf= SHARED VOTING POWER: 6,760,979 2008: http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/...A&RcvdDate=2%2F14%2F2008&pdf= Shared Voting Power :23,737,829 * 2007: http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/...FA&RcvdDate=2%2F9%2F2007&pdf= Shared Voting Power :38,092,451 * Gruß CJ
Das sind immerhin knapp 17 Mill. weniger.........
Wenn ich das auf 12 Monate umrechne oder auf Handelstage ist das schon eine ganze Menge, wenn ich im Vergleich das durchschnittlichen Handelsvolumen ansehen.
CJ
Goerner
Thursday February 19, 4:05 pm ET
CARLSBAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Patriot Scientific Corp.
(OTCBB:PTSC) today issued the following letter to all shareholders.
ADVERTISEMENT
To all shareholders and stakeholders of Patriot Scientific, the
purpose of this letter is to provide an update to you on TPL's
activities associated with the MMP™ Portfolio.
In this update, I will summarize; 1) our announcement regarding
recent activities in the German Patent Office, 2) the status of the
MMP™ Portfolio re-examination process, 3) pending litigation and 4)
future MMP™ Portfolio licensing activities. While I understand that
I will not address all of your questions, I will try to present, and
clarify these points for you. Please understand that these are
complicated issues to discuss and that all public communications
regarding the MMP™ portfolio must be reviewed, and approved for
release, by many parties. We are required to do this to insure that
no information becomes public that would encumber, or otherwise
adversely impact, any activities regarding negotiations with
prospective licensees, discussions with the USPTO or other
regulatory agencies, or in any other legal proceeding.
Recent German Nullity Proceeding Victory by TPL
On February 2, 2009, TPL/Alliacense announced that the German
Federal Patent Court 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 original MMP
Portfolio application filed by TPL in 1989, which resulted in seven
issued US patents.
While the action, initiated by Deutsche Telecom, to nullify the
German patent was positive in the favor of our patent, the decision
is expected to have no impact on the ultimate result of the USPTO re-
examinations underway on four of the seven MMP™ patents.
To clarify, the German proceeding was the counterpart of the USPTO
patent re-examination process.
Update on re-examination activities at the USPTO
Beginning in 2007, a series of reexaminations was initiated against
four key patents in the MMP™ Portfolio (the `148, `336, `584
and `749). As we have stated previously, this is a time-consuming,
detailed process that can take several years. No one can forecast
the progress, or the eventual outcome, of the re-examination
processes, but we remain optimistic for a variety of reasons,
including those outlined in Dr. Choate's paper with a link, included
in my June 16, 2008 letter to the shareholders, which can be found
on Patriot's website.
We regret to see the amount of speculation that goes back and forth
among many of our shareholders regarding the uncertainties of this
process. Further, I am certain that attempts at direct
communications by any of you with anyone at the USPTO office will
only serve to create confusion and potentially even delay the
examinations. It is our opinion that any comment by us prior to a
final completion of any of the examinations will only serve to
confuse the process. As soon as anything is definitive, I assure you
we will communicate that to our shareholders in a timely fashion.
We remain confident that the USPTO will re-affirm the strength of
the MMP™ Portfolio whenever its final actions are determined and
made public.
Litigation
As you are aware, four of the MMP™ patents remain the subject of on-
going litigation initiated by several non-US companies. Of the
original group of three Taiwanese companies, one- ASUSTeK, has opted
to settle as announced in December 2008. Recent Court actions to
determine the venue for a potential trial (Northern District of
California (NDCA) or Eastern District of Texas (EDT) have been
resolved with the suit remaining in the Northern District of
California. This decision should accelerate the trial schedule as
the EDT calendar is generally more congested than that of NDCA.
On December 1, 2008, we, TPL and Alliacense, Ltd. were named as
defendants in a lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California
by Barco, N.V. The Barco case seeks declaratory relief that its
products do not infringe enforceable claims of the '584, '749
and '890 patents.
MMP™ Portfolio licensing activities – TPL and Patriot have announced
six new licensees since the 2009 fiscal year began June 1, 2008 with
ASUSTeK, Rockwell Automation, Roland Corporation, Audiovox, Robert
Bosch and Hoya Corporation.
As TPL and Alliacense reviewed at our Annual Shareholders meeting in
October, 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.
We expect that TPL/Alliacense will continue to successfully pursue,
and close, new licensing transactions over the life of the MMP™
Portfolio.
I look forward to your constructive feedback and will attempt to
clarify any other issues that can be disclosed to the extent of our
ability under applicable contractual, or regulatory, constraints.
Sincerely,
Rick Goerner
President and CEO
Patriot 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.
Contact:
Patriot Scientific Corporation
Angela Hartley, 760/547-2700 ext. 102
Hello Ron:
It was the first letter at the right time with more facts as usual.
So, I have to agree to your comments. Furthermore, I've never thought
that the German Telekom gets involved in the MMP story. However, the
Telekom, Vodavone and others sell WLAN equimpnet, mobiles .....so
they propably have to pay.
I'd like to see more short SHL letters with hard facts as the last
one. The share price still is a "desaster" and I hope that a few
licenses come in, to show that we still have a MMP revenue stream.
S40205
...und klar muss die Telekom auch zahlen, die vertreiben eigene Telefone und jedem Menge technisches Gerät in die ganzen Welt.
Grüße Abenteurer
Abfragezeitpunkt: 25.02.2009 07:58:01
Aktenzeichen-DE: 690 33 568.7
Aktenzeichen-EP: 97 20 0767.8
Veröffentl.-EP: 0786730
UG01 - Kurzer Überblick:
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
UG11 - Veröffentlichung:
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
UG21 - Verfahrensablauf (mit Historie):
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)
UG23 - zuständige Abteilung:
Patentabteilung : 08
UG25 - Gebührenfälligkeit:
Nächste fällige Jahresgebühr: 20. / 31.08.2009
UG41 - Hauptklassen (mit Historie):
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
UG45 - Zusammenfassung:
Zusammenfassung vorhanden und veröffentlicht, jedoch nicht im DV-Bestand
UG51 - Bibliografische Daten:
Bezeichnung:
Preisgünstiger Hochleistungsmikroprozessor
UG52 - Prioritäten:
Priorität(en)
03.08.89 Unions-Priorität (aus Pat/Gbm) Land: US Akz: 389334
UG53 - Anmelder (mit Historie):
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
UG55 - Vertreter:
Vertreter:
Angegeben am 14.08.07
Strehl, Schübel-Hopf & Partner, 80538 München
UG58 - Erfinder:
Erfinder
Moore, Charles H., Woodside, Calif., US; Fish, Russell H., Mountain View,
Calif., US;
UG61 - EPA-Anmeldung:
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
Ich werde mal mit dem 2ten Senat in München telefonieren.
Dort kann man Akteneinsicht bzw. Auskunft bekommen.
Es wäre eigentlich mal interessant zu wissen, wer was, wie, wo eingereicht hat. Ob es Kontakt nach Amerika von dort gibt usw.
Oder ??
1. Fax an das Bundespatentgericht, 2. Senat, Postfach 900253, 81502 München, Fax: 089-69937-5302
Aktenzeichen: 2Ni36/07 EU mit dem Antrag auf Akteneinsicht (liegen dort schon einige vor)
m.d.B. um Kopie der Akte
und eine "neutralisierte Abschrift" des Urteils wenns geschrieben ist.
Das Urteil ist noch nicht geschrieben.
Habe länger mit denen telefoniert.
Sehr nett !!!!
Sehr hilfsbereit.
Kleiner Hinweis an alle : War eine Nichtigkeitensache !!!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. and ASUS Case No. C 0800884 JF COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, (related to C 08 00877 JF and C 08 00882) Plaintiffs, STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2) AND IPROPOSEDI ORDER THEREON TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
WHEREAS all matters in controversy between plaintiffs ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and Asus Computer International (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and defendants Technology Properties Limited, Patriot Scientific Corporation, MCM Portfolio, LLC, and Alliacense Limited (collectively, “Defendants”) have been settled; WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby stipulate, and respectfully request that the Court order, as follows:
(1) All claims asserted by Plaintiffs and all counterclaims asserted by Defendants in this action shall be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) does not apply to the dismissal of this action nor to the dismissal of the pending and related actions in the Eastern District of Texas (case nos. 2:08-cv-174, 175, 177, and 227); and (3) All attorneys’ fees and costs shall be borne by the party that incurred them.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
WHITE & CASE LLP
By: Is!
Mark R. Weinstein
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
2387952 CASE NO. C08-00884 iF (and related cases)
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.
Date:
(Signed)The Honorable Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge ATTESTATION UNDER GENERAL ORDER 45
I, Sushila Chanana, am the ECF User whose ID and password is being used to file this STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON. In compliance with General Order45, X.B., I hereby attest that Mark Weinstein and Charges Hoge have concurred in this filing and that I will keep their electronic signature on file