Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited and Patriot
Scientific Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.,
Panasonic Corporation of North America, JVC
Americas Corporation, NEC Electronics
America, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba
America, Inc., Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc., Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc. and Toshiba America
Consumer Products, LLC,
Defendants.
JURY DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE
DISCOVERY AND TRIAL DATE
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY AND TRIAL
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Toshiba, NEC and MEI do not oppose Plaintiffs' request for a 60-day continuance of discovery and trial; however, Toshiba opposes to the extent that the Court's calendar may require a continued trial date to be set more than 60 days beyond the existing trial date. In so opposing, Toshiba does not deny that more discovery remains to be done, but argues that Toshiba bears no responsibility for this fact, and also that any continuance beyond January, 2008 would be unduly prejudicial to Toshiba. Toshiba is wrong on both counts. Plaintiffs have diligently sought to obtain discovery from Toshiba and the other defendants. The continuance has been necessitated in no small part by Toshiba's late and still continuing production of key documents required under the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Orders. Toshiba should not benefit – and Plaintiffs should not be unduly prejudiced – by Toshiba’s belated discovery compliance which, unless a continuance is granted, will preclude full and fair resolution of this dispute on the merits. Moreover, Toshiba's claim of prejudice resulting from any continuance beyond January2 Defendant ARM opposes Plaintiffs’ motion on substantially the same grounds; however, in view of Plaintiffs' stipulation as to non-infringement by ARM, ARM's opposition to the motion is now moot. ARM's involvement in this case is solely limited to defending those of MEI, NEC and Toshiba Defendants' products accused of infringing the '584 Patent by virtue of the fact that they contain ARM microprocessor cores. However, given the Court's claim construction of the term "instruction group," Plaintiffs have stipulated that the subject products do not infringe the '584, and have sent ARM a proposed stipulated entry of judgment in favor of ARM under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). This proposed stipulated order has not been finalized for submission to the Court, however, because of disagreement as to whether the stipulation should cover ARM's recently developed Coretex cores, which Plaintiff had never studied and never accused of infringement. Nonetheless, to minimize unnecessary disputes, Plaintiffs have undertaken to evaluate the ARM Coretex cores, and can now, and hereby do, stipulate that the ARM Coretex cores do not infringe the '584 Patent, for the same reason as the previously accused cores. Accordingly, there is no longer any case or controversy between Plaintiffs and ARM. 2 Contrary to Toshiba's assertions, Plaintiffs have not asked for an "indefinite" or "open-ended" continuance. Rather, Plaintiffs seek only a two month continuance in order to complete discovery in a fair manner is, at best, greatly exaggerated. Indeed, Toshiba has presented no evidence of actual or likely prejudice in relation to either its customers or in its sales because of this lawsuit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Good Cause Exists for a Continuance The mere fact that no Defendant opposes a two month continuance -- which is all that Plaintiffs have requested -- demonstrates that good cause for this motion exists. Plainly, all parties, including Toshiba, understand that additional discovery remains to be done and that more time is needed for its completion. Moreover, Toshiba does not dispute the facts recited by Plaintiffs in their opening brief that Toshiba produced chip-related technical documents right up to, during and even after the recent 30(b)(6) depositions taken on accused chips; and that Toshiba is continuing, to this day, to produce key technical documents. Instead, Toshiba attempts to minimize the importance of these documents by suggesting that they were not used much in the recent depositions; and, further, attempts to assign all blame for these delays on Plaintiffs. Neither of these arguments has merit, as more fully described below. Toshiba Is Still Producing Significant Technical and Non-Technical Documents on an Almost Daily Basis Disregarding the fact that pursuant to this Court’s Discovery Order, it had an affirmative obligation to produce relevant documents by no later than October 2006, Toshiba attempts to minimize the importance of its belated and continuing production of documents. Indeed since Plaintiffs filed this motion, Toshiba has continued to produce thousands more pages of documents – both technical and damages-related – on July 23, 24, 25, 31 and August 1, 2 and 3, and has given no indication that it has completed its production. Reply declaration of Eric Jacobs ("Jacobs Reply Decl."), filed herewith, 2-10, Exs. 29-37. Toshiba argues that its late production of technical documents in June and July has had no impact on the Plaintiffs’ ability to take discovery and points to the fact that Plaintiffs took the depositions of the Toshiba chip witnesses without using any documents from these late productions as evidence that these documents were unnecessary. This is untrue. The documents used at the 30(b)(6) chip depositions were not limited to the documents produced by Toshiba last fall. Plaintiffs used documents from Toshiba’s June and early July productions in the depositions of Toshiba's witnesses and would have used more documents from these productions if they had had sufficient time to translate, review and analyze them prior to the depositions. See Jacobs Reply Decl., 11. With Toshiba pushing to have the chip depositions in early July,3 however, and the close of discovery fast approaching, Plaintiffs were forced to go forward with the depositions without having the benefit of these documents that were turned over in untranslated form shortly before the depositions or were electronic files that were produced
simultaneously, or nearly so, with the occurrence of the depositions. Indeed, Plaintiffs are still in the process of reviewing these documents now. Moreover, Plaintiffs also have to review and analyze the additional documents that Toshiba has produced since the 30(b)(6) chip depositions. Toshiba’s late production has in fact prejudiced Plaintiffs and led to the need for additional time. Toshiba insisted that the chip depositions go forth in early July and even made representations to Plaintiffs that its witnesses would be able to provide the needed testimony without reference to any documents. In fact, the witnesses relied heavily on documents during the depositions. See Jacobs Decl. (filed with Plaintiffs' opening brief), 30. Toshiba also attempts to excuse its late productions by arguing, incorrectly, that the documents being produced were related only to chips that were not in Plaintiffs’ preliminary infringement contentions or contained end-user product system (rather than chip-related) information. In fact, as late as June and July, Toshiba was still producing information relating to chips originally accused by Plaintiffs. See Jacobs Reply Decl., 11. Moreover, Toshiba's production was late, even as to those chips that were part of Plaintiffs’ amended infringement contentions. After all, Toshiba was aware of those chips no later than December 2006, and certainly should have been prepared to produce information relevant to those chips shortly after April 17, 2007 when Toshiba and TPL entered into the representative chip stipulation. Finally, contrary to its assertion, Toshiba was not producing just system level documentation for new systems implicated by the Court’s June 2007 decision to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their
infringement contentions against the MEI Defendants. Rather, during June and July, Toshiba Continued on the next page Plaintiffs’ Discovery Efforts Have Been Timely And Expeditious Plaintiffs began seeking key technical documents in June 2006 – promptly after issuance of the Discovery Order – and again in October 2006. See Jacobs Decl., 2-5 and Exs. 2-4.5 Among other things, Plaintiffs specifically asked for electronic design files necessary to conduct their infringement analysis with regard to the accused chips. See Arvanitis Decl., 3-16 and Jacobs Decl., 2-5 and Exs. 2-4. In late fall of 2006, Toshiba produced what it decided were the relevant technical documents, but failed to produce, inter alia, the electronic design documents which contain the level of detail which Plaintiffs had indicated they needed to conduct their infringement analysis. See Jacobs Decl., 14 and Ex.12. Simultaneously, during the fall of 2006, Plaintiffs negotiated with Toshiba regarding the production of the electronic design files. At no time during the negotiations did Toshiba state that it would not produce the electronic design files sought by Plaintiff. Instead the negotiations centered around where and how Toshiba would allow these documents to be accessed by the Plaintiffs – not issues to be brought to the Court. These negotiations lasted until late April 2007 when Toshiba finally agreed to provide these files to Plaintiffs without its earlier restrictions that would render them useless or its earlier requirements that Plaintiffs travel to other locations to review these documents at specific workstations.6 See Jacobs Decl., 6-17 and Exs. 5-15. Continued from the previous page produced and continues to produce system level documentation and source code for end-user products containing Toshiba’s own chips. See Jacobs Reply Decl., 11. In their October 27, 2006, letter to Defendants, Plaintiffs also sought relevant damages-related documents. See Jacobs Decl., Ex. and continued to ask for additional damages-related documents in subsequent meet and confer letters. Toshiba now attempts to blame Plaintiffs for the delay resulting from Toshiba’s months-long refusal to provide electronic design documents, such as GDS and netlists, in native format to Plaintiffs’ counsel without onerous restrictions. Between October 2006 and May 2007, however, Toshiba insisted on restrictions on the use of the native format documents that would have Continued on the next page However, Toshiba did not produce any electronic design files immediately.
As set forth in the Declaration of Eric Jacobs accompanying Plaintiffs’ opening brief, Plaintiffs have been diligent in pursuing the documents they are seeking from Defendants, but have been hampered because the documents were slow to be produced and once produced, a number of them required translation into English before they could be analyzed. While Toshiba now argues that Plaintiffs were not diligent because they failed to file a motion to compel against Toshiba, the fact that no motion to compel has been filed is irrelevant to whether Plaintiffs have been diligent. As the record shows, Toshiba never refused to produce documents, but simply was slow to do so. Moreover, after each time that Plaintiffs threatened a motion, Toshiba began producing the requested technical documents in earnest. Plaintiffs would have been hard pressed to go to the Court with a motion when Toshiba was continuing its production. Toshiba Disregards the Discovery That Still Remains to be Conducted Despite some, but far from complete progress with Toshiba, much discovery still remains Continued from the previous page rendered them useless. Only when it became clear to Toshiba that other Defendants had agreed to produce their native format electronic design files to Plaintiffs with far less restrictions did Toshiba finally agree to provide these documents on similar terms. See Jacobs Decl., 17. ARM’s claims of discovery mischief by Plaintiffs are equally misplaced. Once notified of the volume of documents involved, Plaintiffs agreed with ARM that the production of millions of pages of documents was unnecessarily burdensome to both sides. Ironically, ARM complains that Plaintiffs failed to immediately agree to ARM’s offer of witnesses for deposition – extended only one day before this Court issued its claim construction ruling, with the result that ARM was able to avoid this discovery altogether and instead was offered to be removed from the case with a stipulation of non-infringement, based on the Court’s claim construction ruling. Lastly, ARM’s recitation of its discovery efforts fails to disclose that ARM itself produced documents relating to its Cortex core even though Plaintiffs, one month earlier had explicitly agreed in writing to limit discovery to the only two ARM cores still accused in the case – ARM7TDMi and ARM926EJ-S. Toshiba also argues that Plaintiffs were not diligent in amending their infringement contentions. This is not true, as evidenced by the fact that this Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file their First Amended Infringement Contentions, over the objection of MEI. In fact, Toshiba, engaged in months of negotiations over Plaintiffs’ First Amended PICs, before finally agreeing to be done. Plaintiffs must still take the depositions of NECEL 30(b)(6) witnesses on chips and both Toshiba and MEI’s 30(b)(6) witnesses on end-user products. The NECEL depositions are currently scheduled during the week of August 20, 2007. The Toshiba end-user product depositions are currently scheduled for the week of August 6 and the week of August 20, 2007, although it is not certain that they will be completed on the specified dates. Moreover, it appears that Toshiba has not provided complete system level schematics that provide the sufficient level of information needed to conduct these depositions in a meaningful manner. See Jacobs Reply Decl., 12 and Ex. 38. The MEI end-user depositions are not yet scheduled. Defendants are
also taking depositions of third party witnesses throughout August and damages-related depositions must still be scheduled.9 It is virtually impossible to schedule all of the depositions that still remain in August. As it stands, there is double and sometimes triple tracking of depositions taking place during this month. Moreover, even if all of these depositions are
completed in August, the experts will not have a reasonable amount of time to digest the discovery obtained in order to provide their expert opinions. Consequently, a continuance is necessary. Toshiba Demonstrates No Prejudice It Will Suffer as a Result of a Limited Continuance Toshiba argues that “[w]hile Toshiba can manage a sixty day extension, any further months of uncertainty will risk a continuation of the undue harm this case has caused Toshiba in Continued from the previous page to them. Toshiba has offered a date for its 30(b)(6) witness testifying about chip-related damages, but has not offered anyone to testify regarding the sales of Toshiba’s end-user products. NECEL has offered up a witness on three damages-related topics for the middle of August and another witness on licensing issues during the week of August 27, 2007. Plaintiffs are in the process of determining whether documents needed for these depositions have been produced. The marketplace.” See Opp. at 15. Pointing to a letter sent by TPL to Wal-Mart, Toshiba claims that it will be prejudiced in the marketplace if trial occurs later than January 2008. Yet Toshiba offers no evidence of any harm it has suffered as a result of TPL legitimately conducting its licensing program. For example, there is no evidence of reduced sales, let alone evidence that Wal-Mart or any other customer has stopped or threatened to stop purchasing product from Toshiba. Presumably, if such evidence existed, Toshiba would have presented it. Accordingly, since Toshiba has not offered any such evidence, it apparently does not exist. As a result, Toshiba's claim of prejudice resulting from alleged harm in the marketplace must be disregarded. Toshiba has no other cognizable basis asserting prejudice. The fact that Toshiba employees have been engaged in discovery compliance does not demonstrate prejudice of the type that would justify denial of a continuance beyond two months. Discovery compliance is a necessary burden shared by all parties in litigation. There is no evidence of discovery abuse or any other evidence of discovery burden which would justify denying the present motion. Moreover, the fact that Toshiba is willing to agree to a two month continuance undercuts their suggestion that an additional month or so continuance, if required, will cause them undue
prejudice.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' motion and the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ request for a two month extension. To the extent that the Court’s calendar cannot accommodate a January trial date, Plaintiffs request a trial date as soon thereafter as is possible.
DATED: By: Roger L. Cook
TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP
Roger L. Cook, CA State Bar No. 55208
Lead Counsel
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD. and
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL
CO., LTD., ET AL.,
Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Agreed-In-Part Motion to Continue Discovery and Trial (#276). The motion is GRANTED. The Court’s previous Docket Control Order is now modified as follows: January 7, 2008 Jury Selection - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas December 17, 2007 Pretrial Conference - 1:30 p.m. in Marshall, Texas December 12, 2007 Motions in Limine Three (3) days prior to the pre-trial conference provided for herein, the parties shall furnish a copy of their respective Motions in Limine to the Court by facsimile transmission, 903/935-2295. The parties are directed to confer and advise the Court on or before 3:00 o’clock p.m. the day before the pre-trial conference which paragraphs are agreed to and those that need to be addressed at the pre-trial conference. The parties shall limit their motions in limine to those issues which, if improperly introduced into the trial of the cause, would be so prejudicial that the Court could not alleviate the prejudice with appropriate instruction(s). December 7, 2007 Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions and Form of the Verdict. All other deadlines are extended 60 days.
Signed By Judge Ward
Posted by: m00nsh0t on August 08, 2007 04:45PM
Last update: 8/8/2007 4:39:43 PM
TPL Moves for Partial Judgment of Non-Infringement to Remove ARM as a Defendant, and Expedite Appeal from the Court's US Patent '584 "Instruction Groups" Claim
CUPERTINO, Calif., Aug 08, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- In a further move to simplify and streamline the Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio infringement trial in the US District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, The TPL Group today announced that it will ask the Court to enter a partial judgment of non-infringement as to certain products. Accordingly, the proposed partial judgment will:
-- Stipulate that "instruction groups" claim elements of the accused claim of US Patent 5,784,584 (US '584) be deemed non-infringed for the purpose of this trial, based on the Court's claim interpretation, thereby allowing appeal from this claim interpretation ruling to be initiated immediately, rather than waiting until the end of trial.
-- Stipulate that all accused ARM core families (ARM7, ARM9, ARM9E, ARM10E, ARM11), as well as the ARM Cortex microprocessor core family, are non-infringed under the Court's claim interpretation of "instruction groups," thereby removing ARM as an intervener in the Texas Court trial.
Other moves initiated by The TPL Group to streamline the trial include:
-- Using selected semiconductor devices to represent groups or families of chips and/or end user products so that the infringement evidence completed on one semiconductor device can be applied to many devices and/or end user products.
-- Filing (and being granted on August 7, 2007) a motion for continuance of the trial to January 2008, thereby allowing 60 more days for additional discovery time needed for the extremely broad scope and pervasiveness of infringing end user products, thereby paving the way for very clear and succinct presentations to the jury during the upcoming trial.
As a result of these moves by TPL, the trial will focus on two US patents in the MMP Portfolio (5,809,336 and 6,598,148), both of which encompass several claims against accused products manufactured by the defendants.
"We expect our streamlining efforts to be very helpful to all involved, especially the Court and Jury in reaching their decision at the five-day trial," said Dan Leckrone, Chairman of The TPL Group. "We are confident we will prevail." He confirmed that TPL is pursuing damages for past infringement, penalties for willfulness, and an injunction prohibiting further operations in the US.
Markman Ruling Perspective
The June 18th Markman ruling broadly confirmed the strength of MMP claims including the very significant affirmation of US 5,809,336 as applied to both modern PLL-based and non PLL-based systems. Following the ruling, Leckrone asserted, "The ruling reflects well the skill of the Texas Court in dissecting and dealing with a very complex trial over the past 15 months." At that time he noted that there was a specific phrase that would require further scrutiny, and that phrase, disclosed today, is "instruction groups" as it relates to "multiple instruction fetch" techniques protected by US '584.
Accelerating US '584 Appeal Process
Commenting on the proposed partial judgment relative to US '584, Leckrone said, "We continue to believe that the claim construction for 'instruction groups' deserves more scrutiny than the Court could give it during the Markman hearing due to time and space constraints. While the proposed partial judgment we are seeking agrees to a judgment of non-infringement on this claim construction for the Texas Court trial, it will allow us to seek reversal of this interpretation in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit immediately. Otherwise, TPL would have had to wait for the end of the Texas Court trial in order to have the interpretation reviewed by the Court of Appeals."
Despite the Texas Court trial, the sweeping scope of applications using MMP design techniques continues to encourage manufacturers of end user products from around the globe to become MMP licensees. Since January 2006, HP, Casio, Fujitsu, Sony, Nikon, Seiko Epson, Pentax, Olympus, Kenwood, Agilent, Lexmark, Schneider Electric, NEC Corporation, Funai Electric, SanDisk, Sharp Corporation, Nokia and Bull 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 (PTSC). The portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is becoming widely recognized that the jointly-owned patents protect fundamental technology used in designing microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. The MMP Portfolio is exclusively managed by Alliacense, a TPL Group Enterprise.
About The TPL Group
Founded in 1988, Technology Properties Limited (The TPL Group) has emerged as a global coalition of high technology enterprises involved in the development, management and commercialization of Intellectual Property (IP) assets as well as the design, manufacture and sales of proprietary products based on these same IP assets. Among the advanced products that The TPL Group enterprises continue to bring to market are system-on-chip solutions for distributed digital media processing applications. For more information, visit .
SOURCE: The TPL Group
Sorry, my english is not so great.
Grüße Abenteurer
dem Prozeß angeschlossen hat. Somit steht einer Einigung mit den anderen nichts mehr im Weg.
Guten Morgen Patrioten,
hier mein Versuch die jur. Lage nach dem letzten bekannten Stand lt. TPL-News etc. zu interpretieren. Das ist lediglich meine Meinung:
ARM ist dem Prozess in Texas freiwillig beigetreten, wurde also von TPL/PTSC nicht verklagt. Die Gründe von ARM dem Prozess dort beizutreten, dürften in der Unterstützung der dort verklagten ARM-Kunden, der theoretisch möglichen Verklagung von ARM durch weitere eigene Kunden, für den Fall, dass ARM eine Verletzung von 584 nachgewiesen werden kann, liegen.
Einige der J2,5 haben die Überprüfung aller Patente durch das Patentamt bereits Ende 2006 beantragt und den Anträgen wurde stattgegeben (=Normalfall bei über 50% der Anträge wird einer Überprüfung zugestimmt).
Im Markman Ruling von Judge Ward kam zum Ausdruck, dass es zum Thema \"instruction groups\" und \"multiple instruction fetch\" geschützt durch das Patent US \'584 Klärungsbedarf gibt. Dies haben TPL/PTSC im Pressrelease nach dem Hearing-Erfolg auch zum Ausdruck gebracht indem sie schrieben, dass es eine hochtechnische Frage gibt, die es noch zu klären gilt. Kurze Zeit später hat das Patentamt claim 29 von Patent \'584 zurückgewiesen und damit zum Ausdruck gebracht, dass es einen Klärungsbedarf gibt.
TPL hat nun bis zum 26. August Zeit, 11 Fragen des Patentamtes zu claim 29 zu bentworten.
Im TPL-Pressrelease kommt zum Ausdruck:
-TPL wird basierend auf der claim Interpretation des Gerichtes im Markman Ruling zu Terminus \"instruction groups\" für \'584 beim texanischen Gericht beantragen, diesen Terminus im Sinne des lfd. Rechtsstreites in Texas als \"nicht patentverletzend\" zu deklarieren, und wird das Gericht paralell um Erlaubnis bitten, diesen Passus sofort von einem anderen Gericht klären zu lassen und damit nicht bis zum Ende des Rechtsstreites in Texas warten zu müssen
-TPL wird weiterhin das Gericht bitten, die unter den Terminus \"instruction groups\" für \'584 fallenden ARM Prozessoren als \"nicht patentverletzend im Sinne des Rechtsstreites\" zu deklarieren und ARM aus dem Prozess zu entlassen
-weitere von TPL veranlasste Maßnahmen zur Fokussierung auf den Prozess:
-Zulassung von Semiconductor Devices, um die Patentverletzung auf Basis des Nachweises für einen einzelnen Device repräsentativ auf Chipfamilien und Enverbraucherprodukte nachweisen zu dürfen
-Ausdehnung der Discovery Phase auf + 60 Tage, um die extrem breite Patentverletzung von patentverletzenden Endverbraucherprodukten klar im Rahmen des Prozesses im Januar der Jury präsentieren zu können (siehe auch initial filing von TPL: Thema T. lieferte nur für 6 von über 20 Chips rudimentäre Unterlagen bisher)
-als Resultat wird sich TPL beim Prozess im Januar auf die Patente \'336 und \'148 konzentrieren
-TPL fasst zusammen (sinngemäße Übersetzung von mir):
Diese Maßnahmen sind sehr hilfreich und werden es allen Beteiligten besonders dem Gericht und der Jury während dem 5 -tägigen Prozess vereinfachen, Entscheidungen zu treffen. Wir sind sicher, dass wir gewinnen werden. TPL verlangt damages für die Patentverletzung, Strafgelder für vorsätzliche Patentverletzung (willful infringement: Wo sind die filings der Verteidiger hierzu?) und eine Unterlassung die es den Verteidigern verbietet, weitere Operationen in den USA auszuführen (im Klartext: Lieferstops für alle Produkte, die das MMP-Portfolio verletzen für die USA)
Weiterhin verweist TPL auf das starke Markman Ruling, welches in der Breite die Stärke des MMP-Portfolios bestätigte insbesondere beim Patent \'336 (aus meiner Sicht das Schlüsselpatent! Wenn ich die drei Patente gewichten sollte aus meiner Perspektive, würde ich sagen, dass das Patent \'336 ein 80-90% iges Gewicht hat und 584 und 148 nur jeweilks 10% gemessen an der Werthaltigkeit). Leckrone bestätigte nochmals die hohe Kompetenz des Gerichtes in der 15 monatigen Phase, die u.a. auch an der in Patent \'584 abzulesenden gerichtlichen claim Definition für den terminus \"instruction groups\" zun erkennen ist.
Zum Patent 584 sagt Leckrone abschliessend:
Wir glauben weiterhin, dass die claim construction für Patent \'584 für den Twerminus \"instruction groups\" mehr Zeit braucht, als sie uns das Gericht im Rahmen der Zeitachse bis zum Markman Hearing gewähren konnte. Obwohl das nun von uns ersuchte Judgement, eine \"Nicht-Patentverletzung\" für das claim \"instruction groups\" in Patent \'584 im Rahmen des Prozesses einräumt, wird uns dieses Judgement die Möglichkeit einräumen, die Interpretation dieses claims beim Court of Appeal überstimmen zu lassen. Wenn wir nicht so vorgegangen wären, hätten wir damit zunächst bis zum Ende des Prozesses im Jaunar warten müssen. So können wir es sofort veranlassen.
**************************************************
Mein Fazit:
1. So offen damit umzugehen ist hervorragend.
2. Die Zieladressen für alle Kernbotschaften wurden erreicht!
3. Die taktische jur. Vorgehensweise ist in Anbetracht der Umstände hervorragend
4. Für \'584 werden sich alle auf eine längere Wartezeit einrichten müssen (auch die Verteidiger und die angeschriebenen Firmen) bis zur endgültigen Klärung
5. Aus dem Markman Ruling selbst, dem Statement dazu von TPL und der Stellungnahme zu \'584 vom Patentamt folgere ich, dass zwischen Gericht und Patentamt ein \"Abgleich/Austausch\" stattgefunden haben wird/stattfindet. Dies ist nach dem positiven Markman Ruling für TPL/PTSC ein großer Vorteil (336/148)
6. Ich schliesse nicht aus, das \'336 + \'148 noch modifiziert werden müssen, dann aber sehr stark daraus hervorgehen werden!
6. Das Pressrelease ist eine wahre Kampfansage an alle Verteidiger in Texas und an die 485 angeschriebenen Firmen
7. TPL fährt das volle Programm! Heisst also TPL will Zahlung von Patentgebühren für die Patentverletzungen in der Vergangenheit, Strafzahlungen für die vorsätzliche Verletzung der Patente und ein Lieferstop für alle Produkte für den Raum USA herbeigeführt durch gerichtlich angeordnete Unterlassungen bezogen auf alle Produkte der Verteidiger, die nach Auffassung von TPL die Patente des MMp-Portfolios verletzen
8. Mit diesem Pressrelease wurde der Druck auf die Verteidiger, der ohnehin nach dem verlorenen Markman Ruling und der von TPL offengelegten \"Nichtbeibringung\" von erforderlichen Unterlagen im Rahmen des gerichtlich vorgesehenen Discovery Zeitrahmens durch einen Verteiger schon groß war, weiter erhöht Einigungen herbeizuführen.
9. Dieses Pressrelease richtet sich auch an alle, die sich bisher nicht einigen wollten!
10. Mir war absolut nicht bekannt, dass TPL im Rahmen des Rechtsstreits lediglich Lizenzzahlungen, Strafgelder etc. für die Patentverletzung in der Vergangenheit fordert! Das heisst auch hier liegt die Zukunft noch vor uns, denn wieviele Produkte haben die Verteidiger alleine in den letzten 15 Monaten auf den Markt gebracht mit MMP-Bezug und wieviele kommen noch?
**************************************************
So das war es schon (nochmals Entschulding an BamBam! Dieses Release hatte ich nicht gesehen und leider etwas voreilig in einigen Punkten auf Dein gestriges Posting reagiert!)
**************************************************
Heute ist Freitag der 10. Juli!
Freitags gibt es oftmals News bei PTSC und bei Alliacense.
Und dann wären da noch die Jahreszahlen, die ich spätestens bis zum 14. August erwarte (siehe neue SEC-Deadlines für die Veröffentlichung u.a. von Jahreszahlen)!
Grüsse an alle Longs
Rocketlaunch
Wann wird der Kurs endlich reagieren und wieder Mal Richtung 1,00 USD ziehen/springen ????
Gruss
MB
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Matzelbub" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Ich denke in der nächsten Woche wissen wir mehr. Bis zum 15.8. müßten die Zahlen des letzten Geschäftsjahres kommen, falls es nicht wieder zu einer Fristverlängerung kommt, was ich aber nicht glaube.
Dann wissen wir auch wie viel Nokia bezahlt hat, wieviel Warrents noch zurück zu kaufen sind und wie viele Shares PTSC selbst zurückgekauft hat. Erwarte auch gute Nachrichten zu Holocom und eine neue Dividende und evtl. ein neues Vorstandsmitglied.
Schönes Wochenende
Nassie
Abenteurer ist mit anderen Aufgaben beschäftigt und der gute joker verdaut wohl noch die verpasste Meisterschaft.....
Schöne Grüsse an Alle,
MB
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Matzelbub" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Das freut mich zwar nicht(wegen der Steuer und weil PTSC mit dem Geld lieber Warrents und Shares zurückkaufen soll) ist wohl aber nicht zu ändern. Wird je nach Höhe der Dividende auch den Kurs etwas beflügeln.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited and Patriot
Scientific Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Panasonic Corporation of North America;
JVC Americas Corp.; NEC Electronics
America, Inc.; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba
America, Inc.; Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc.; Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America
Consumer Products, LLC; ARM, Inc.; and
ARM, Ltd.
Defendants.
JURY DEMANDED
JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO STRIKE MEI’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS COME NOW
The parties and jointly move the Court to extend the deadline for MEI’s response to TPL’s motion to strike MEI’s invalidity contentions based on allegations of obviousness. TPL filed the motion to strike on July 31, 2007. Under Local Rule CV-7(e), MEI’s response is due on August 15, 2007. However, the parties are attempting to resolve this issue without the Court's assistance and therefore respectfully request that the deadline for MEI’s response to be extended to August 22, and that the deadline for TPL to file its reply to be extended until August 29. A proposed order is attached hereto.
Dated: August 13, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ David J. Healey
David J. Healey
Lead Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) on this 13th day of August 2007. As of this date, all counsel of record have consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV- 5(a)(3)(A).
Signed by Javier O. Hidalgo
Aber keine Sorge: ab 2009 werden auch die Longies auf ihre Kosten kommen (bzw. ihre Verluste wieder kompensiert haben). Dann besteht auch kein Grund, auf diejenigen neidisch zu sein, die durch Euch zu Millionären geworden sind.
man kauft ja auch nicht zu jedem Kurs und bei der Stückzahl die ich hab, auch nicht mehr in einen Hype....also von dem her, danke der Nachfrage...
Traden mit den kleinen Stückzahlen, die hier in D gehandelt werden ist mir dann doch etwas zu anstrengend
Naja, nach dem Kursrutsch nach den Zahlen werde ich mir auch mal wieder ein paar Aktien gönnen Ich schätze mal, dass der Kaufkurs dann bei 0,42 USD liegen wird - vielleicht sogar kurzfristig noch darunter...warten wir es ab...
und Nokia hat mehr als 20 Mio gezahlt. Alles wird gut.
Licenses 43,090,000
Expenses 4,894,471
Interest 112,104
Tax Provision 11,790
Net PDS income 38,295,843
50/50 split to PTSC 19,147,922
PDS Breakdown 43,090,000
Sandisk 13,420,000 (my estimate)
Sharp 8,720,000 (my estimate)
Nokia 20,950,000 (actual)
Shares Repurchased Amount Price Per share
FY06 4,874,827 $ 4,024,395 $ 0.83
3,132,500 $ 1,960,305 $ 0.63
2,771,700 $ 1,456,964 $ 0.53
Q407 2,688,500 $ 1,396,235 $ 0.52
Q108 4,961,640 $ 2,725,793 $ 0.55
Total 18,429,167 $ 11,563,692 $ 0.63
Ich bin zufrieden mit den Zahlen.
Grüße Abenteurer