Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
Crossflo Health Information Exchange Project Presented at HP Health and Life Sciences Symposium
--CEO of National Center for Health Care Informatics (NCHCI) Presented Pilot Program Success
Last update: 4:05 p.m. EST March 3, 2009
SAN DIEGO, March 3, 2009 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Crossflo Systems, Inc., a Patriot Scientific company (PTSC:patriot scientific corp com
News , chart , profile , more
Last: 0.090.000.00%
3:59pm 03/03/2009
Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio
Analyst
Create alert Insider
Discuss
Financials
Sponsored by:
PTSC 0.09, 0.00, 0.0%) , announced that a pilot project, created in collaboration with HP and the National Center for Health Care Informatics (NCHCI), achieved its success metrics and was the model for a presentation today by Raymond F. Rogers, chief executive officer of NCHCI. Mr. Rogers' topic at the HP 2009 Health and Life Sciences Symposium was "Enabling the Rapid Development and Deployment of Health Information Exchange".
The presentation centered on the fact that healthcare quality, safety, and efficiency are compromised because information resides in thousands of disparate data silos. Interoperable health data exchange has become a formidable national challenge for the healthcare industry. The presentation overviewed a pilot project that successfully demonstrated the ability to rapidly develop and deploy health information for the purpose of detecting naturally occurring or bioterrorists' pathogens in their pre-epidemic phases (syndromic surveillance).
Entitled The Montana Health Information Exchange Pilot Project, this effort linked four disparate Montana hospitals' Emergency Departments (ED) with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (MT DPHHS) to share syndromic surveillance data. The system, as envisioned and designed, is fully functional and provides a platform from which to build future capabilities, including the ability to securely move patients' medical records to the point of care.
Crossflo's CDX Server software running on the HP Integrity NonStop server platform facilitates biosurveillance processes and enables the public health systems to quickly detect and respond to potentially catastrophic health problems as well as more routine public health concerns. Crossflo first formed a relationship with HP to configure the CDX Server software on an HP Integrity NonStop server platform over a year ago, when Crossflo joined the HP Developer and Solution Provider Program.
The Symposium is HP's annual premier thought leadership forum dedicated entirely to life sciences and the healthcare community. It provides opportunities to learn and network with health & life sciences industry experts, researchers, physicians and administrators from around the globe. This year's symposium is being held March 2-5, 2009 in Litchfield Park, Arizona.
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. Crossflo's 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: www.crossflo.com. For information on Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC:patriot scientific corp com
News , chart , profile , more
Last: 0.090.000.00%
3:59pm 03/03/2009
Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio
Analyst
Create alert Insider
Discuss
Financials
Sponsored by:
PTSC 0.09, 0.00, 0.0%) , building an integrated core intelligence solution in the data sharing software and secure networking technology sectors, visit www.ptsc.com.
Media Contact:
Angela Hartley
Senior Vice President
858-724-2216, x223
ahartley@crossflo.com
SOURCE Crossflo Systems, Inc.
http://www.crossflo.com
Copyright (C) 2009 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
vielleicht bekommt Crossflo ja dabei einen Fuß in die Tür...
Patientenakte
Von Emily Singer
<!--off_include virtual="/struktur/tr/artikel/aufmacherbild.dat"ý</dýý<!-- RSPEAK_STOP ý<span style="width: 180pý<img height="180" alt="" width="180" src="http://www.heise.de/bilder/134013/0/0" _fcksavedurl="http://www.heise.de/bilder/134013/0/0ý
Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei die Einführung der elektronischen Gesundheitsakte, dem "electronic health record", kurz EHR. Besonders kleinere Privatpraxen benötigen bei dem Mammutprojekt Unterstützung. Deren Wichtigkeit für die Patientenversorgung in dem Land kann nicht unterschätzt werden: Sie sorgen für bis zu 80 Prozent der US-Gesundheitsversorgung, und erst 20 Prozent haben sich bereits mit dem Thema beschäftigt.
Der Großteil der Konjunkturpaketgelder für den Medizinbereich, insgesamt 17 Milliarden Dollar, soll in Form von Anreizen für Ärzte und Krankenhäuser verteilt werden, auf EHRs und dazu passende elektronische Rezeptsysteme umzusteigen – sie werden dafür über die Versicherungssysteme Medicare und Medicaid Rückerstattungen erhalten. Ab 2011 werden Ärzte, die ihre Praxen digitalisieren, zwischen 40.000 und 60.000 Dollar erhalten können, Krankenhäuser sogar mit mehreren Millionen gefördert. Die Gelder sollen über einen längeren Zeitraum ausgezahlt werden; denjenigen, die die Technik nicht innerhalb von fünf Jahren umsetzen, drohen dagegen Strafen. "Ich denke, dass viele enttäuscht waren, dass die Anreize erst nach einigen Jahren verfügbar sein werden", kommentiert David Bates, Leiter der Abteilung für Allgemeinmedizin am Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "Die Gelder sind jedoch durchaus beträchtlich, und ich denke, dass viele Praxen dadurch genügend Anreize haben, die Technik endlich einzuführen."
Nur rund 4 bis 25 Prozent der Gesundheitsversorger in den USA nutzen derzeit elektronische Datenerfassungssysteme, abhängig von ihrer Größe. Das neue Gesetz wird nicht verlangen, dass alle Ärzte EHRs einsetzen oder direkt für die notwendige Software zahlen. Die Anreize sollen vor allem dafür sorgen, dass die Eintrittsbarriere abgesenkt wird. Lässt ein Arzt ein System heute installieren, muss er zunächst zwischen 40.000 und 50.000 Dollar investieren und wird in den ersten paar Monaten nach der Umstellung eher an Produktivität einbüßen. Die tatsächlichen Vorteile landen hingegen bei Patienten und Versicherern, die von Einsparungen profitieren würden. John Halamka, IT-Chef und Dekan für Technologie an der Harvard Medical School, hofft, dass die neuen Anreize nun auch den Praxen selbst zugute kommen. Das System der Umsetzung ähnelt dabei dem in Dänemark, einem Land, in dem die EHR-Durchdringung weltweit zu den größten gehört.
Zusätzlich schafft das neue Gesetz eine neue Behörde, das "Office of the National Coordinator of Healthcare Information Technology". Es wird an das US-Gesundheitsministerium angedockt und soll die Installation der EHR-Systeme im ganzen Land überwachen, Standards setzen und Durchführungshilfe leisten. Die Behörde wird zusammen mit der Standardisierungseinrichtung National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) und weiteren Bundesagenturen Gelder verteilen.
Um von den Anreizen zu profitieren, haben Ärzte und Krankenhäuser bestimmte Kriterien zu erfüllen. So müssen die verwendeten elektronischen Systeme einen einfachen Informationsaustausch zwischen verschiedenen Gesundheitsversorgern und Institutionen zulassen. Leicht wird die Umsetzung nicht, weshalb die restlichen zwei Milliarden der im Konjunkturpaket vorgesehenen Modernisierungsgelder für den Gesundheitsbereich in den nächsten zwei Jahren für die Entwicklung von Standards und Verfahren ausgegeben werden sollen. Mittel aus diesem Topf werden auch in Ausbildungsprogramme für das Heer von IT-Spezialisten fließen, die die Implementierung übernehmen sollen. "Wir brauchen viel mehr Leute, als aktuell ausgebildet sind", sagt Bates, "fast jede Praxis mit mehr als zehn Ärzten wird einen Techniker brauchen, der Hilfestellung leistet."
Die meisten Ärzte haben weder Zeit noch Muße, lange nach einem passenden EHR-System Ausschau zu halten oder mit technischen Problemen umzugehen, die bei der Implementation zwangsläufig entstehen. "Wir können nicht davon ausgehen, dass jede kleine Praxis es schafft, die notwendige Software selbst zu installieren", sagt Farzad Motashari, stellvertretender Bevollmächtigter im New Yorker Gesundheitsamt, der bei der Entwicklung einer lokalen Lösung federführend half. "Die effizientesten Lösungen sind immer die auf Gemeindeebene", meint er. Müsse eine Praxis einzeln auswählen, welche Technik sie einsetze, unterscheide sich die Software zu stark, und das schränke wiederum den Informationsfluss ein.
In einem Brief an das Weiße Haus und den US-Kongress drängte eine Gruppe von Ärzten und Entscheidern aus dem gesamten Gesundheitswesen des Landes, darunter auch Halamka und Motashari, deshalb darauf, eine entsprechende Formulierung in die Umsetzungsanweisung des Konjunkturpakets aufzunehmen. Der Gesetzgeber scheint sie zu erhören: Es sollen Mittel für regionale Gesundheits-IT-Zentren fließen, die praktische Unterstützung für lokale Versorger anbieten werden. Diese sollen dann entsprechende Standards setzen und Regeln aufstellen; derzeit läuft ein Wettbewerb, wer den Job übernehmen wird.
In dem Schreiben nennen die Gesundheitsprofis zwei Beispiele für auf Gemeindeebene erfolgreich umgesetzte Projekte: Eines in New York und das andere in Massachusetts. Im "Big Apple" startete das Vorhaben 2007 mit dem Ziel, Allgemeinmediziner, die Erstkontakt mit Patienten haben, besonders in den ärmsten Vierteln der Stadt mit digitaler Technik auszurüsten. Eingeschlossen sind technische Unterstützung sowie Trainingsmaßnahmen, außerdem kann sich eine Praxis vorrechnen lassen, wie viel sie durch EHRs sparen wird und wie sehr das ihren Patienten hilft. "Die Erfahrung aus Massachusetts und New York zeigt, dass sich eine solche Implementierung zu fast 100 Prozent erfolgreich umsetzen lässt", sagt Harvard-Mann Halamka.
Projekte auf Gemeindeebene können seiner Erfahrung nach auch dabei helfen, den Datenschutz zu gewährleisten – eine der größten Ängste im Zusammenhang mit der EHR-Einführung. "Kleine Praxen haben mit Sicherheitsthemen keine Erfahrung", sagt Mostashari, "wir haben deshalb einen Datenschutzanwalt, der ihnen hilft, Strukturen zu schaffen, die die Privatsphäre der Patienten schützt und das Missbrauchsrisiko reduziert".
Zwar gebe es potenzielle Gefahren wie etwa die unbeabsichtigte Veröffentlichung von Gesundheitsdaten in großer Zahl. Doch sei die Technik so gestaltet, dass sich im Nachhinein nachvollziehen lasse, wer auf welche Daten Zugriff hatte.
Firmen, die EHR-Systeme verkaufen, bereiten sich jedenfalls bereits auf ein boomendes Geschäft vor. "Wir beabsichtigen, in den nächsten Jahren aggressiv zu wachsen", sagt Girish Kumar Navani, Präsident und Mitbegrüder von eClinicalWorks, einer Technologiefirma aus Massachusetts, die Software und Support für die EHR-Projekte in New York und Massachusetts lieferte. "Wir werden ein Büro in Kalifornien eröffnen und viele neue Leute einstellen."
Patriot Scientific Corporation Announces Roper Industries’ Purchase of a Moore Microprocessor PatentTM (MMP) Portfolio License
Patriot Scientific Corporation PTSC today announced that Roper Industries, Sarasota, Florida, ROP has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio license from the TPL Group, Patriot Scientific’s exclusive MMP licensing partner.
“Roper Industries joins an expanding list of global industry leaders, including Nokia, Sharp, Hewlett Packard, Fujitsu, Sony, Robert Bosch and other major corporations that have become MMP licensees within the last three years,” said Rick Goerner, Patriot Scientific President and CEO. “Roper Industries is a further example of the wide range of products that can benefit from an MMP Portfolio license.”
The MMP Portfolio patents cover techniques that enable higher performance and lower cost microprocessor and microcontroller 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 numerous microprocessor-based features.
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 PTSC. The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
About Roper Industries
Roper Industries is a diversified growth company with annual revenues of $2.3 billion, and is a component of the Fortune 1000, S&P Midcap 400 and the Russell 1000 Indexes. Roper provides engineered products and solutions for global niche markets, including water, energy, radio frequency and research/medical applications. Additional information about Roper Industries is available on the Company’s website at www.roperind.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.
Patriot Scientific Corporation
Angela Hartley, 760-547-2700 ext. 102
und aus: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/...c2EuZ2V0Qmli#7_0_18L
Transaction History
Date Transaction Description
03-17-2009 Final Rejection Mailed
03-03-2009 Reexam Litigation Search Conducted
09-08-2008 Certificate of Service
09-08-2008 Response after Non-Final Action
08-13-2008 Examiner Interview Summary Record
05-12-2008 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
07-02-2008 Reexam Non-Final Action Mailed
06-18-2008 Reexam Litigation Search Conducted
05-12-2008 Certificate of Mailing
05-12-2008 Certificate of Service .......
Bibliographic Data
Application Number: 90/008,306 Customer Number: -
Filing or 371 (c) Date: 10-19-2006 Status: Final Action Mailed
Application Type: Re-Examination Status Date: 03-17-2009
Examiner Name: RIMELL, SAMUEL G Location: ELECTRONIC
Group Art Unit: 3992 Location Date: -
Confirmation Number: 1634 Earliest Publication No: -
Attorney Docket Number: 0081-011D3X1 Earliest Publication Date: -
Class / Subclass: 701/025 Patent Number: -
First Named Inventor: 5809336 Issue Date of Patent: -
--------------------------------------------------
Title of Invention: HIGH PERFOMANCE MICROPROCESSOR HAVING VARIABLE SPEED SYSTEM CLOCK
Also zunächst: Abgelehnt.
Es gibt aber weitere Möglichkeiten, das Patent aufrecht zu erhalten.
Dazu: http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/368/2003_PLI.pdf
Danke und Grüße
Abenteurer
336: Letzter Stand-Examiner hat Patent für nichtig erklärt. Aber das ist noch nicht das Ende. Lies mal http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/368/2003_PLI.pdf.
Darin steht, wie es weitergehen wird (welche Schritte das Anwaltsrudel dann gehen kann.)
Es geht in der Rejection um Wortklaubereien der Claims.
Gruß NR
link:
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1094813#message
Variable and fixed speed clock
posted on Mar 18, 09 11:39PM
Column 17 lines 11-37 from 5809336 addresses the fundamental philosphy of two independent clocks.
"Most microprocessors derive all system timing from a single clock. The disadvantage is that different parts of the system can slow all operations. The microprocessor 50 provides a dual-clock scheme as shown in FIG. 17, with the 15 CPU 70 operating a synchronously to I/O interface 432 forming part of memory controller 118 (FIG. 2) and the I/O interface 432 operating synchronously with the external world of memory and I/O devices. The CPU 70 executes at the fastest speed possible using the adaptive ring counter 20 clock 430. Speed may vary by a factor of four depending upon temperature, voltage, and process. The external world must be synchronized to the microprocessor 50 for operations such as video display updating and disc drive reading and writing. This synchronization is performed by the I/O 25 interface 432, speed of which is controlled by a conventional crystal clock 434. The interface 432 processes requests for memory accesses from the microprocessor 50 and acknowledges the presence of I/O data. The microprocessor 50 fetches up to four instructions in a single memory cycle and 30 can perform much useful work before requiring another memory access. "By decoupling the variable speed of the CPU 70 from the fixed speed of the I/O interface 432", optimum performance can be achieved by each. Recoupling between the CPU 70 and the interface 432 is accomplished 35 with handshake signals on lines 436, with data/addresses passing on bus 90, 136."
Why the examiner thinks that a variable speed clock and a fixed speed clock are obvious from the two clocks in the Kato design which are dependent on each other and therefore cannot be variable and fixed at the same time, is beyond me. The patent clearly states that one clock is variable and the other is fixed and therefore the term "independent" means more than being physically located in two separate locations. The 336 is clearly not obvious from kato/ledzius. The question now is what can be done to make the claims valid again and how long will it take. If the aproach taken for the 584 is succesful then I can only imagine that the wording on the claims will change further.
In anführungszeichen = decoupling bedeutet independent.
Nur wie den Examiner um Verstand /Verstehen bringen?
Abwarten, es sollte TPL was einfallen.
Re: Variable and fixed speed clock--Jonahlomu.
in response to Variable and fixed speed clock by jonahlomu
posted on Mar 18, 09 11:46PM
Let me ask you a very basic question. Are you of the opinion that this technical information is, to some degree, subjective in nature? Obviously the USPTO ruling seems to imply that very thing. Thanks.
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1094824#message
Re: Variable and fixed speed clock--Jonahlomu.
in response to Re: Variable and fixed speed clock--Jonahlomu. by 1Rare1
posted on Mar 19, 09 12:01AM
No it is not subjective. There is no way to implement the design outlined in the 336 from the kato/ledzius patents. The 336 enables the user to operate the CPU at a frequency that is different from the frequency at which data is trasferred from an external device. Kato's design does not.
(Es geht um die Begründung des Examiners zur Rejection des 336.)
Kann man im File Wrapper der USPTO nachlesen - siehe 3131.
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1094915#message
Re: The problem - (is not with the Patent, it's with the examiner)
in response to The problem by jonahlomu
posted on Mar 19, 09 08:18AM
The examiner simply did not understand the Patent and the German Examiner and the dozens if not hundreds of Patent attorneys and engineers that have scrutinized it, do understand it.
Logic says the Patent will be sustained in a short time, however, it's good to know they have finally gotten around to it. Strict time deadlines are in place now and jonahlomu's posted argument is irrefutable in my opinion.
I majored in logic and have passed the Florida bar and although that's not much, I believe that jonahlomu's argument would convince any intelligent person.
Is there an English translation of the correct German Patent examiners final findings? If already posted I apologize I haven't seen it.
Thanks, Jim
Der Kurs wird wohl scheibchenweise in den Grund gefahren. Grundsätzlich halte ich eine revidierte Aussage aber für möglich (siehe neureichs Postings).
Wie schon in 3130: Hier besser dargestellt:
Message:
Re: Material Event?
in response to Material Event? by PCsReasy
posted on Mar 20, 09 01:28PM
It is not a material event.
Please check if Genentech filed an 8K subsequent to the final action on 6331415 February, 2007.
As I have tried to explain, the notification of a Final Action is not in itself final but a step in the revalidation process:
© 2003, Gallagher & Dawsey Co., LPA
November 2003
The receipt of a final Office Action can be a very nerve racking event for a new inventor. Such inventors often experience anxiety, feelings of defeat, and, of course, the sense that the entire financial investment in the application is a loss. All inventors must recognize that receipt of a final rejection is not uncommon and that several options still exist at this point. In fact, there are two responses to a final rejection that are considered fully responsive; (a) an appeal, or (b) a request for continued examination (RCE).
Appeal
The rejection of an application by a Patent Examiner is appealable to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, provided the appeal is timely filed and includes the appropriate fee. The Board is generally a three judge panel composed of former patent examiners. In order to be considered timely, the appeal must be filed while the application is still pending. In other words, the appeal must be filed before the period to respond to the office action has expired, which is generally three months for a final Office Action. The USPTO fee for filing a notice of appeal for a small entity is currently $165.
An appeal starts with the filing of a Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal is a simple procedural document. Next, an Appeal Brief must be filed within two months after filing the Notice of Appeal. Inventors, now referred to as appellants, may obtain up to five additional months to file the Appeal Brief with the payment of the appropriate extension fee. The USPTO small entity fee for filing the Appeal Brief on time is $165.
The Appeal Brief must meet numerous USPTO requirements regarding the content. The bulk of the Appeal Brief is directed toward (a) identifying the issues presented for review, and (b) the arguments regarding each issue. Upon the filing of the Appeal Brief the Examiner must prepare an Answer. The Answer must meet a number of USPTO requirements directed to format and content, and most importantly, the Answer must respond to the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief.
The appellant is then given the right to file a Reply Brief, thereby giving them the last word before the Board. Additionally, the appellant may request an oral hearing of the appeal by the Board. Generally, an oral hearing should only be requested when necessary or desirable for a complete presentation of the appeal. Approximately fifteen to thirty percent of appeals involve oral hearings. Interestingly, many practitioners believe that appeals decided without an oral hearing receive more favorable outcomes. Additionally, the twenty minutes of oral arguments before the Board significantly increase the cost of an appeal.
The Board then considers the briefs and oral arguments, if any, and writes a decision. The decision may affirm or reverse the Examiner's rejection in whole, or in part, or remand the application to the Examiner for further consideration. The decision must include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient for review should the decision be appealed. Often the Board will restrict the decision to a review of the rejections made by the Examiner.
This year, approximately 41% of the appeals decided by the Board reversed the Examiner, approximately 35% affirmed the position of the Examiner, and approximately 11% affirmed-in-part the position of the Examiner. Therefore, the odds of receiving a favorable outcome as the result of an appeal are quite good.
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
The second type of response to a final rejection that is considered fully responsive is a RCE. An RCE is a type of continuing application. The RCE allows the applicant to file a second application to keep the prosecution of the first parent application alive after it has received a final rejection. The RCE application stays with the same Examiner that was reviewing the parent application and keeps the same serial number, yet the final rejection of the first parent application is removed. RCE's can be thought of as simply paying an additional fee to buy another full examination of the application. A potential problem with RCE applications is that they stay with the same Examiner who will often repeat the same arguments without being receptive to new arguments.
Conclusion
While Office Actions containing final rejections can be intimidating, they do not necessarily mean the death of a patent application. In fact, filing an appeal of a final rejection before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences often results in an outcome that is favorable for the applicant.
Be well
§
Unisys Corporation Purchases Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio License
CUPERTINO, Calif. – March 23, 2008 – Alliacense today announced that Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS) has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio license from The TPL Group. Unisys Corporation is a worldwide information technology (IT) services and solutions.
”Unisys is a widely respected leader in integrating the latest technologies into solutions that benefit its customers”, according to Carl Silverman, Vice President, Licensing for Alliacense. “We welcome Unisys to the rapidly growing list of more than fifty MMP licensees.”
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.
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 the MMP Portfolio
The Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by the privately-held TPL Group and publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC). The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.
About Unisys
Unisys is a worldwide information technology services and solutions company. We provide consulting, systems integration, outsourcing and infrastructure services, combined with powerful enterprise server technology. We specialize in helping clients use information to create efficient, secure business operations that allow them to achieve their business goals. Our consultants and industry experts work with clients to understand their business challenges and create greater visibility into critical linkages throughout their operations. For more information, visit www.unisys.com.
About Alliacense
Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of Intellectual Property (IP) licensing programs. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, technology experts, and experienced business development/management executives, Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of TPL’s IP portfolios. Founded in 1988, The TPL Group has emerged as a coalition of high technology enterprises involved in the development, management and commercialization of proprietary product technologies as well as the design, manufacture and sales of proprietary products based on those technologies and corresponding IP assets. For more information, visit www.alliacense.com.
# # #
Alliacense and Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
Alliacense Contact: Kelly Williams at (408) 446-4222
Last update: 4:02 p.m. EDT March 23, 2009
CARLSBAD, Calif., Mar 23, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC:PTSC
announced that Unisys Corporation (UIS:Unisys Corporation
has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio license from The TPL Group, Patriot Scientific's exclusive MMP licensing partner. Unisys Corporation is a worldwide information technology (IT) services and solutions company.
"Unisys represents the latest addition to a distinguished list of global industry leaders, including Nokia, Sharp, Hewlett Packard, Fujitsu, Sony, Robert Bosch and other major corporations that have become MMP licensees within the last three years," said Rick Goerner, Patriot Scientific President and CEO. "The addition of Unisys as a licensee demonstrates the breadth of products that can benefit from an MMP Portfolio license."
The MMP Portfolio patents cover techniques that enable higher performance and lower cost microprocessor and microcontroller 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 numerous microprocessor-based features.
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 (PTSC:PTSC
. The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.
About Unisys
Unisys is a worldwide information technology services and solutions company. It provides consulting, systems integration, outsourcing and infrastructure services, combined with powerful enterprise server technology. It specializes in helping clients use information to create efficient, secure business operations that allows them to achieve their business goals. Unisys consultants and industry experts work with clients to understand their business challenges and create greater visibility into critical linkages throughout their operations. For more information, visit www.unisys.com.
About Patriot Scientific
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(TM) 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.
SOURCE: Patriot Scientific Corporation
Patriot Scientific Corporation
Angela Hartley, 760-547-2700 ext. 102
Copyright Business Wire 2009
--Pilot Program Demonstrates Syndromic Surveillance Capabilities
Last update: 7:00 a.m. EDT March 24, 2009
SAN DIEGO, March 24, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Crossflo Systems, Inc., a Patriot Scientific company (PTSC:patriot scientific corp com
an innovative provider of data-sharing solutions for the public sector, announced a pilot project focused on implementing a data sharing system for a Health Information Exchange (HIE) solution for the State of Montana. The Crossflo DataExchange(R) Server software (CDX), running on HP Integrity NonStop systems, facilitates biosurveillance processes and enables the public health systems to quickly detect and respond to potentially catastrophic health problems as well as more routine public health concerns.
Crossflo worked with HP to implement an initial data sharing environment among the National Center for Health Care Informatics ("NCHCI") and four State of Montana hospitals. Anonymous data has been mapped from those four data sources to a target system using a data sharing model based on a National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) equivalent HL7 standard, thereby enabling the exchange of information between these systems. HP and Crossflo first teamed to configure the Crossflo CDX Server software on an HP Integrity NonStop server platform over a year ago, when Crossflo joined the HP Developer and Solution Program.
The project successfully demonstrated the ability to rapidly develop and deploy health information for the purpose of detecting naturally occurring or bioterrorists' pathogens in their pre-epidemic phases (syndromic surveillance). The system, as envisioned and designed, is fully functional and provides a platform from which to build future capabilities, including the ability to securely move patients' medical records to the point of care.
William C. Mohlenbrock, M.D., Crossflo's Healthcare Subject Matter Expert, noted "We are not aware of any other team who can so rapidly enable the flow of data between the variety of healthcare and public safety first responder data sources in compliance with numerous data sharing standards as we have done in Montana with the HIE for Syndromic Surveillance. This data-sharing capability is critical to efforts geared toward preventing epidemics and other catastrophes in the population."
"The success of this pilot provides the foundation for future expansion that may include additional hospital and public health facilities as well as further functionality," said Raymond F. Rogers, NCHCI's chief executive officer. "We are proud to have been the catalyst to combine the expertise and the robust solutions of Crossflo and HP to meet these information sharing challenges."
"Healthcare organizations want to improve the quality of care by reducing response times to public health emergencies, at the same time they lower cost," said Winston Prather, vice president, NonStop Enterprise Division, HP. "The Health Information Exchange solution, created from the combination of HP Integrity NonStop systems and Crossflo DataExchange Server software, enables secure, real-time sharing of patient health records and disease monitoring data between health facilities."
HIEs provide the capability to electronically move clinical information between disparate health care information systems preserving the meaning of the information being exchanged. The Crossflo DataExchange(R) platform allows for highly controlled access to and retrieval of data in an efficient, cost-effective and scalable manner without disruption to the legacy systems. The HP Integrity NonStop Platform provides secure, fault tolerant capabilities with real-time access to such critical health care information.
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. Crossflo's 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: www.crossflo.com. For information on Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC:patriot scientific corp com
News , chart , profile , more
Last: 0.080.00-4.76%
, building an integrated core intelligence solution in the data sharing software and secure networking technology sectors, visit www.ptsc.com.
Media Contacts:
Angela Hartley
Senior Vice President, Administration
858-724-2216, x233
ahartley@crossflo.com
SOURCE Crossflo Systems, Inc.
http://www.crossflo.com
Copyright (C) 2009 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
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.
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Date: April 14, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept: Courtroom 2, 5th Floor
Before: Honorable Judge Howard Lloyd
I. INTRODUCTION
There should not be secret patent claims. See e.g. Tafas v. Doll, Case No. 2008-1352, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5806, *32-33 (Fed. Cir. March 20, 2009) (“The Patent Act demonstrates that applicants are expected to be forthright about their inventions.”). Defendants disagree, and believe that they should be permitted to conceal their representations and contentions as to the scope of their asserted patents from the public for the sole reason that potential alleged infringers would realize that Defendants’ infringement claims are meritless. See Fisher Decl., [Dkt. No. 113] 4 (“In addition, the public dissemination of the infringement contentions may encourage companies to collectively refuse to deal with TPL.”). Because Defendants refuse to allow publication of their Rule 3-1 Disclosures to the very entities that make the alleged Accused Instrumentalities, and Defendants’ version of the protective order would allow Defendants to game the system to encourage secret patent claims, Acer Inc., Acer America Corporation and Gateway Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) oppose the entry of the form of protective order proposed by Defendants.2 Plaintiffs also oppose Defendants’ motion because their version would permit any employee (not just the two identified for the first time in their opening brief) to review Plaintiffs’ most valuable information including competitive business practices, financial details, and highly confidential technical material such as source code, schematics, and other trade secret information concerning the design and operation of their products. 1 Cross motions concerning the protective order were filed after Defendants refused to agree to a joint motion procedure or a schedule whereby Plaintiffs (who initially raised the issue) would file the motion first. Davis Declaration in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (“Davis Decl.”)3,4, Ex. A (3/6/09 e-mail at p.1 and 3/3/09 email at p. 7). 2 Regrettably, Defendants have chosen to misrepresent to the Court that Plaintiffs “repeatedly declined to meet-andconfer telephonically. . ..” Defs.’ Mot., [Dkt. No. 105] at 6:18-21. Although Plaintiffs believe that it is not relevant to the merits of the instant motion, it should be noted for the record that such a statement is false as Plaintiffs repeatedly reaffirmed their willingness to conduct telephonic meet-and-confers and did, in fact, have a telephonic meet and confer at approximately 3:10 P.M. on March 6. Davis Decl. 2-6 and Exhibit A [3/3/09 e-mail at p. 7 (“I had proposed a further meet and confer on the section 7.3 issue”); 3/6/09 e-mail at p.4 (“Your claim is just flat out false. I have never refused to meet and confer. I have only asked that you put your proposal in writing before we talk.”); 3/6/09 e-mail at p. 3 (“After you do so, I’ll be happy to have a call with you all and discuss the issues further”); 3/6/09 e-mail at p. 2 (“I’ll call you today . . .. Are you available to talk at 2”); 3/6/09 e-mail at p. 1] and Ex. B [3/6/09 e-mail at p. 1 (“I'll give you a call now.”)].
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Defendants’ Proposed Section 7.3 Fails to Adequately Protect Plaintiffs’ Trade Secrets and Highly Confidential Information Defendants claim that they need to modify Section 7.3 of the Northern District of California’s standard form of protective order to allow at least two non-lawyer engineers employed by Defendant Alliacense Limited (“Alliacense”) access to Plaintiffs’ most sensitive information. Defendants’ position, however, is disingenuous as the actual language in Defendants’ proposed protective order does not limit the disclosure of Plaintiffs’ highly confidential information to the two employees described in Defendants’ Motion. Instead, Defendants’ proposed language broadly permits a Receiving Party to disclose highly confidential information to: [T]he employees of the Receiving Party (as defined in this Order) to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the “Agreement to Be Bound By Protective Order” (Exhibit A); and in addition, the employees of Alliacense who have access under this provision and have signed the “Acknowledgement and Agreement to be Bound re: Employee of Alliacense” (Exhibit B) Defendants’ Proposed Protective Order, [Dkt. No.106-2] 7.3. There is nothing in Defendants’ version of the protective order that would preclude them from giving Plaintiffs’ most valuable information to, for example, Mac Leckrone – the son of TPL’s chairman – and an individual identified by Defendants as an intended recipient of Plaintiffs’ trade secret information. See Davis Decl., Ex. A at p. 3 (proposing Mac Leckrone as a recipient of Plaintiffs’ trade secret information).3 Section 7.3 in the standard form of protective order approved by the Northern District of California clearly establishes that this District does not generally permit employees of a party to the lawsuit access to discovery responses designated for protection under the protective order. At most, it provides for an optional provision that allows in-house attorneys, who are bound by professional ethical obligations, to review trade secret material in certain limited circumstances. The basic problem with permitting any non-lawyer employee of a party access to designated 3 This is precisely why Plaintiffs requested that Defendants put their proposal in writing before a telephone call; namely so that Defendants could not later run from what their intentions were regarding the handling of Plaintiffs’ trade secret information. See supra note 2 and Davis Decl. 2-6. Defendants’ failure to mention their intended disclosure of information to Mac Leckrone’s in their motion to the Court confirms Plaintiffs’ concern in this regard. confidential or highly confidential materials is that the employee may be exposed to pressure to improperly disclose or use the designated materials t an an outside expert or outside counsel who may more easily resist. The employee presumably relies on his employment as his sole means of support and has no loyalties to persons outside his employer. Outside experts and outside counsel, in contrast, generally have other means of support (from other clients, for example) and are selfinterested in maintaining their reputation for independence and integrity which motivates them to adhere to the restrictions set by the protective order. The employee may also accidentally or unintentionally disclose such confidential information due to his or her work on subsequent, similar projects. This is not just a theory; it is a likelihood in this case. As admitted by Defendants’ counsel, the two purported recipients are actively involved in evaluating competitors of Plaintiffs for Defendants’ onerous “licensing program.” These engineers could, and likely inevitably would, use the information that they learned about Acer/Gateway products to unfairly leverage and enable Defendants to have a competitive advantage when analyzing those third parties and potential targets of Defendants’ licensing programs. This is reason enough to reject Defendants’ proposed version of Section 7.3. See tailored Lighting, Inc. v. Osram Sylvania Prods., 236 F.R.D. 146, 147-48 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (holding that: a) it was unreasonable to expect patent holder’s chief patent inventor to be able to avoid the subconscious use of confidential information revealed through discovery that was relevant to those interests; b) the patent holder’s designee was not uniquely qualified over other outside experts to assist in the prosecution of the patent holder’s claim; and c) the cost burden to the patent holder of hiring an outside expert did not outweigh the substantial risk of competitive injury to the corporation of disclosure of its trade secret information to the patent holder’s president and chief patent inventor.); Safe Flight Instrument Corp. v. Sundstrand Data Control Inc., 682 F. Supp. 20, 21-22 (D. Del. 1988) (prohibiting plaintiff’s president, a preeminent aeronautic engineer of “great moral fiber” who had received numerous patents, from reviewing defendant’s confidential information because he was a working scientist of the instrument corporation and because there was no assurance he would curtail future research). Defendants’ assurances that the designated “employees” will sign “strict acknowledgements” of the protective order are insufficient. Whatever a “strict acknowledgement” is, it can carry no more legal weight than a mere “acknowledgement,” and everyone who receives designated materials must promise to obey the protective order, irrespective of how the acknowledgement is titled. Further, Defendants’ characterization of Plaintiffs’ concerns as “unsubstantiated and speculative fear” proves too much: the perceived need for any protective order that limits access at all can be characterized as arising from an “unsubstantiated and speculative fear” that the receiving party will inappropriately use or disclose the designated materials. In fact, Defendants have raised these same concerns in arguing against the inclusion of Plaintiffs’ proposed Section 7.5. Defendants’ Motion, [Dkt. No. 105] at p.2-3. Specifically, Defendants highlight that they would have no knowledge of the distribution of their sensitive information to third parties. Id. Similarly, Plaintiffs would have no idea if their highly confidential information was shared with Defendants’ directors, officers or other employees. In a perfect world, protective orders are not necessary at all. But courts recognize the world is imperfect, and the use of protective orders is too wide-spread to interpret exclusion from access as a personal attack on anyone’s integrity. Conversely, it takes more than protestations that “I am honest” to qualify someone to receive designated materials. As a practical matter, compliance with the terms of a protective order is a matter of trust. The proposed protective order does not include any independent “policeman” actively guarding the disclosure and use of designated information. Instead, those persons authorized to receive the designated information are trusted to limit access and use of that information as stated in the protective order. The protective order strikes a balance between the “unsubstantiated and speculative fear” of inappropriate disclosure or use of designated information and the practical needs of litigants to argue their positions. Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992). For the reasons set forth above, outside lawyers and outside experts are considered sufficiently independent to be trusted to obey the protective order; party employees and family members are considered too dependent on their affiliated par y to be similarly trusted. Absent a showing of need that goes beyond mere convenience and a showing of independence that goes beyond a mere “I promise to be good,” employees of the parties and family members of top executives should not be permitted access to “highly confidential-attorneys’ eyes only” materials. Tailored Lighting, Inc., 236 F.R.D. at 147-48; Safe Flight Instrument, 682 F. Supp. at 21-22. Defendants cite no cases from this District to support granting access to non-lawyer employees. This district has on occasion ordered that designated in-house counsel be permitted access, apparently on the theory that ethical obligations and the availability of professional sanctions provides in-house counsel sufficient independence to be trusted. In support of their position, Defendants cite Pharmachemie, B.V. v. Pharmacia, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2192, *7-8 (D. Mass. Jan. 30, 1998). The ruling in Pharmachemie is factually distinguishable from this case because the Pharmachemie court only addressed the disclosure of confidential information to a party’s technical employees. Id. Plaintiffs have already agreed to let Defendants’ officers, directors and employees have access to Plaintiff’s confidential information to the extent that it is reasonably necessary for this litigation. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Protective Order, [Dkt. No.103-3] 7.2. Here, Defendants are going one step further by asking that persons who are not acting as in-house counsel receive permission to review “highly confidential-attorneys’ eyes only” information. The Pharmachemie decision does not support such a broad mandate. Defendants also cite MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 497, 500 (D. Kan.
2007). However, unlike the defendants in MGP Ingredients, Plaintiffs have demonstrated the concrete harm that will result from the disclosure of their highly confidential information. As stated above, the language in Section 7.3 of Defendants’ proposed protective order goes beyond the two named engineers, and that the engineers’ access to Plaintiffs’ confidential information can and likely will be used to Defendants’ competitive advantage. The “highly confidential-attorneys’ eyes only” information will also go beyond technical details of interest to the two named engineers. Defendants have proposed to Plaintiffs that other “employees” also have access to “highly confidential-attorneys eyes only” information. During a meet-and-confer, Plaintiffs nominated Mac Leckrone—the son of TPL’s CEO—to receive “highly confidential-attorneys’ eyes only” information. See supra. As explained in Plaintiffs’ Motion, that family relationship is too close to allow Mr. Leckrone access to Plaintiffs’ most sensitive information. Business information, including confidential licensing agreements and financial information, will also be exchanged between the parties, and a licensing executive, such as Mr. Leckrone, cannot be allowed access to that information. Mr. Leckrone’s familial relationship combined with his knowledge of Plaintiffs’ business strategies, the highly confidential terms of various business relationships and Plaintiffs’ technology create an unacceptable risk of and opportunity for the inadvertent disclosure of confidential information. Autotech Techs. Ltd. P'ship v. AutomationDirect.com, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 405, 408 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (“In the end, proper analysis requires a careful and comprehensive inquiry into in-house counsel’s actual (not nominal) role in the affairs of the company, his association in
relationship with those in the corporate hierarchy who are competitive decision makers, and any other factor that enhances the risk of inadvertent disclosure.”). Though Defendants emphasize that the two engineers are only employed by Alliacense and are not competitive decision makers, there are, however, shared interests between the Defendants that permeate any such distinction. The facts are clear: Alliacense is the licensing and enforcement branch of TPL’s patent portfolio, and Defendants explicitly acknowledge that the engineers would “assist with the evaluation and development of litigation strategy at a technical level.” Defendants’ Motion, [Dkt. No. 105] at p.8. Despite Defendants’ contention that Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., supports their position, further examination of the case provides strong support for excluding access to Plaintiffs’ “highly confidential-attorneys’ eyes only” information. 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992). Specifically, the Brown Bag court rejected Brown Bag’s access to the opposing party’s confidential information because “Brown Bag’s counsel’s employment would necessarily entail advising his employer in areas relating to [the opposing party]’s trade secrets.” Id. at 471. The circumstances here are no different. It would be naive to believe that the information gathered and absorbed by the two engineers relating to licensing and enforcement would not be communicated in one form or another to directors, officers or employees of the other Defendants. This is especially true in light of Defendants’ express acknowledgement that these engineers would participate in the evaluation and development of Defendants’ litigation strategy. Simply put, Plaintiffs have no assurance that their highly confidential information will be protected. Finally, Defendants will not be prejudiced if their employees do not have access to highly
confidential Plaintiff information. Defendants may still hire outside consultants and/or experts to review such material. They will likely hire such a consultant in any event in order to offer opinion testimony to the jury. Thus, the only issue is a matter of cost. Defendants, without support, claim that it would be “substantial cost” savings to have internal engineers review Plaintiffs’ highly confidential material. This is a cost born in every patent infringement case in which the patent holders must rely on an accused infringer’s highly confidential information to support this case. See Tailored Lighting, Inc. v. Osram Sylvania Prods., 236 F.R.D. 146, 147-48 (the cost burden to the patent holder of hiring an outside expert did not outweigh the substantial risk of competitive injury to the corporation of disclosure of its trade secret information to the patent holder's president and chief patent inventor). This Court has seen dozens, if not hundreds, of cases just as complex as this one where patent holders relied solely upon outside expert witnesses to prove their infringement case. Because Defendants have not demonstrated that this cost would be so substantial as to be prohibitive in this case – let alone establish any sort of material prejudice – their motion on this provision should be denied. B. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Section 7.5 Properly Allows Plaintiffs to Disclose Information with the Manufacturers and Providers of the Accused Products Ironically, after arguing that non-attorney employees of Defendants should simply be trusted not to misuse the most sensitive materials Plaintiffs produce, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ outside counsel cannot be trusted to accurately identify summaries and analyses received from Defendants and limit access of such summaries and analyses to parties whose information is being summarized or analyzed. There is no great trick to spotting a summary or analysis under Section 7.5 and distinguishing other information not subject to Section 7.5. Defendants’ infringement contentions are an obvious
example of a summary and analysis of technical information belonging to Plaintiffs and their vendors. Legal memoranda and expert declarations filed with the court during motion practice, responses to contention interrogatories, expert reports, proposed demonstrative exhibits, and any exhibit that comes into evidence as a purported summary of underlying evidence are all easily recognized and distinguished from any designated materials that are “original source” evidence (a defendant’s own financial reports, for example). Of course, under the proposed Section 7.5, any summary or analysis of Defendants’ own information (e.g., quarterly revenue figures) could only be shared with defendants (as the source of the summarized information). Nor will it be difficult to determine who, under Section 7.5, can be shown a summary or analysis. Generally, the summaries and analyses will on their face identify the source of the underlying information. Summaries and analyses of “anonymous” source information are unlikely to come into evidence due to a lack of foundation, and Plaintiffs will generally have the opportunity to pursue identification of the source if necessary (e.g., summaries that do not break out information from multiple sources). As a practical matter, Section 7.5 will most likely apply to Defendants’ various infringement and damages contentions, whether in the form of a rule disclosure, an interrogatory response, a document produced that includes an infringement or damages contention, an expert report or declaration, or a legal brief submitted to the court. Under Section 7.5, Plaintiffs’ counsel will be able to consult with the source of the information being analyzed—for example, the manufacturer of the part being analyzed or Plaintiffs’ employees with knowledge—to determine the accuracy of the analysis without going through a laborious de-designation procedure. Time may be of the essence, especially during motion practice or during the exchange of expert reports. Further, it would be a misuse of judicial resources to require Plaintiffs to seek this Court’s approval for every disputed document. Defendants have not and cannot articulate any legitimate reason to make such summaries and analyses confidential as to the source of the information being summarized or analyzed. To the extent Defendants have even tried to articulate any reason, the impropriety of that reason is apparent. For example, Docket No. 113 is a declaration by one of Defendants’ counsel, Jeff Fisher, to support filing an excerpt of Defendants’ infringement contentions under seal. Fisher Declaration, [Dkt. No. 113]. In paragraph 4 of his declaration, Mr. Fisher tellingly admits that one purpose for keeping the infringement contentions secret is to avoid “competitive harm to its licensing program.” Id. at 4. There can be no legitimate advantage to be gained in licensing negotiations by keeping infringement contentions secret. A basic premise of the patent system is public patents having public claims that put the public on notice of the protected subject matter. Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 39 (1878); see also In re Vamco Machine and Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“claims are not technical descriptions of the disclosed inventions but are legal documents like the descriptions of lands by metes and bounds in a deed which define the area conveyed”); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“The constitutional purpose [of the patent system] is to encourage disclosure of patentable contributions to “progress in the useful arts” . . .). Indeed, the “bargain” between the inventor and the public is that, in return for the limited patent monopoly, the inventor discloses the invention to the public. Id. Paragraph 4 of Mr. Fisher’s declaration is an admission that Defendants seek to misuse the protective order to make the asserted scope of the claims a secret, in direct contravention of the public notice function of patent claims. Contrary to Defendants’ apparent intent, anyone making microprocessors is entitled to know the scope of the asserted claims, including the scope that the patent holder asserts. Defendants’ position is even weaker as to the manufacturers of the very parts that are accused in this action. In principle, infringement contentions may include confidential information belonging to those who manufacture the accused part, thereby justifying confidentiality vis-à-vis the public at large. But Defendants have no basis for precluding the access provided by Plaintiffs’ proposed Section 7.5—which merely allows the very parties whose products stand accused of infringement to see the infringement contentions asserted against their products. In relation to parties accused of infringement, paragraph 5 of Mr. Fish r’s declaration is particularly inapt. In paragraph 5, Mr. Fisher asserts a confidentiality interest in Defendants “reverse engineering and technical analyses comparing Plaintiffs’ accused products to the patents in suit”. Fisher Declaration, [Dkt. No. 113] 5. Obviously, the party who “engineered” the accused product in the first place already knows whatever Defendants purportedly gleaned from “reverse engineering,” and Plaintiffs counsel should have the opportunity to check the accuracy of Defendants’ reverse engineering conclusions. And again, given the public notice function of patent claims, there can be no legitimate confidentiality interest in the “technical analyses comparing Plaintiffs’ accused products to the patents in suit” as to the manufacturers of the accused products. In re Vamco, 752 F.2d at 1577. Defendants’ have failed to present any compelling reason for limiting a party’s right to review analyses and summaries of that party’s technology and products.
III. CONCLUSION
Defendants’ arguments are wholly unsupported by the law and/or facts. There is no reasonable justification for Defendants’ attempt to hinder and delay Plaintiffs’ ability to defend itself in this lawsuit. Defendants’ actions have unnecessarily multiplied the number of filings and the litigation burden on Plaintiffs. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion.
Dated: March 24, 2009 K&L GATES LLP
By: /s/ Harold H. Davis /s/
Timothy P. Walker
Harold H. Davis, Jr.
Jas S. Dhillon
K&L GATES LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1100461#message
Date : 03/26/2009 @ 9:15AM
Source : Business Wire
Stock : Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC)
Quote : 0.0921 0.0 (0.00%) @ 9:23AM
Patriot Scientific Corp. Announces Hoffmann-La Roche’s Purchase of a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio License
Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB:PTSC) announced that Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. has purchased a Moore Microprocessor Patent™ (MMP) Portfolio license from The TPL Group, Patriot Scientific’s exclusive MMP licensing partner. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Roche is one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups in the fields of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics.
“The addition of Roche as a licensee demonstrates the breadth of products that can benefit from an MMP Portfolio license, and we are pleased to welcome them as the latest addition to a distinguished group of MMP Portfolio licensees who are leaders in global technology and business,” said Rick Goerner, Patriot Scientific CEO.
Since January 2006, Asustek, HP, Casio, Fujitsu, Sony, Nikon, Seiko Epson, Pentax, Olympus, Kenwood, Agilent, Lexmark, Schneider Electric, NEC Corporation, Funai Electric, SanDisk, Sharp Corporation, Nokia, Bull, LEGO, DMP Electronics, Denso Wave, TEAC, Daewoo Electronics, WMS, Lite-On IT, Alpine, Verigy, Humax, Psion, Tokyo Electron, DIRECTV, Mattel, AMO, Citizen, Gerber Scientific, Emerson Radio, RIM, Onkyo, Hoya, Robert Bosch, Audiovox, and Rockwell Automation have all purchased MMP Portfolio licenses.
About the MMP Portfolio
The Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by the privately-held TPL Group and publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC). The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.
About Roche
Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Roche is one of the world’s leading research-focused healthcare groups in the fields of pharmaceuticals and diagnostics. As the world’s biggest biotech company and an innovator of products and services for the early detection, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases, the Group contributes on a broad range of fronts to improving people’s health and quality of life. Roche is the world leader in in-vitro diagnostics and drugs for cancer and transplantation, and is a market leader in virology. It is also active in other major therapeutic areas such as autoimmune diseases, inflammatory and metabolic disorders and diseases of the central nervous system. In 2008 sales by the Pharmaceuticals Division totalled 36.0 billion Swiss francs, and the Diagnostics Division posted sales of 9.7 billion francs. Roche has R&D agreements and strategic alliances with numerous partners, including majority ownership interests in Genentech and Chugai, and invested nearly 9 billion Swiss francs in R&D in 2008. Worldwide, the Group employs about 80,000 people. Additional information is available on the Internet at www.roche.com.
About Patriot Scientific
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.