Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
To All Friends of Patriot Scientific Corporation,
August was a good month for Patriot, but more than that, it was a record-breaking year! We released fantastic annual results, appointed a new board member, and opened a new publicity channel.
We had terrific year-end results – the best in Patriot’s 20-year history. Our top-line “sales” for fiscal 2007 nearly doubled to $49 million. (Technically, our sales include only our microprocessor chips and the products from Holocom. Most of our income is actually recognized through our equity stake in the joint venture through which we license our patents. It’s just one of those funny accounting rules. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Oxley.) Our net profit was $23.7 million, or $0.06 per fully diluted share. Obviously, Patriot Scientific is enormously profitable and we’re growing rapidly.
Our cash position has also improved hugely over the previous fiscal year, growing by a factor of nearly 5x. We now have over $21 million in the bank, compared to just under $4 million this time last year. That puts us in a much stronger position to acquire other companies, technologies, rights, or equipment.
Regarding our cash, I met recently with the board of directors and we decided not to pay out a dividend this period. We’ll revisit this issue regularly but for now I think we can put that cash to much better use in growing the company, as I hope to show you later this year.
With our patent licensing activity running at the rate of about one new licensee every month, and with more than 300 potential licensees officially notified, we’ve got every reason for optimism. We’ve got many years of licensing deals and revenue ahead of us.
So why isn’t the share price doing better? I get a lot of letters from shareholders asking, “Why didn’t you raise the share price this morning?” If only it were that easy. You know, I sometimes wonder if these people understand how free markets work. To borrow a phrase from the 19th century scientist Charles Babbage, “I am not rightly able to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” Share prices are controlled by supply and demand, not some big red button in my office.
Nick Tredennick has joined our board of directors. As I hinted in our last letter, I’m thrilled that Nick has found the time to join us. I’ve known Nick for a number of years and I admire his balance of technological know-how and business sense. He also has an eye for spotting trends, which brought him together with George Gilder many years ago to write Dynamic Silicon and the Gilder Technology Report and to participate in the Telecosm tech-investor conferences. Nick’s going to review the acquisition candidates we’re evaluating and recommend some ideas of his own. His industry knowledge, corporate experience, and nose for good (and bad) investments will really work in our favor.
I’m now writing a regular monthly column for Electronic Business that starts this month. This is a widely distributed electronic newsletter published by Reed Elsevier alongside big industry magazines like Electronic News and EDN (Electronic Design News). In addition to spreading the word about Patriot Scientific I’ll be writing about the intellectual property business, industry climate, business models, and related topics of the day.
You may be getting a tax refund. As you know, we paid two dividends during calendar year 2006, and you will have received a Form 1099 that declared those dividends as taxable income. They actually weren’t taxable, and we sent out corrected 1099s, but some of you didn’t receive them. We’ve sent out the corrected form yet again, but just in case you still don’t receive it we’ve posted more information here.
Mark your calendars for our next shareholders’ meeting on Tuesday, the 23rd of October. As before, we’ll hold the meeting at the La Costa Resort & Spa here in Carlsbad. Everyone’s welcome and you can find information on travel and hotels on our Web site.
With best regards for a good and profitable summer;
—Jim Turley
President/CEO
Patriot Scientific Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited and Patriot
Scientific Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
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
TOSHIBA DEFENDANTS' OPPOSED MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF P.R. 3.6(a) DATES
The Toshiba Defendants move the Court for a clarification of the deadlines for amending infringement and invalidity contentions pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3-6(a). This is not a motion to change in any way the basis on which parties are permitted to submit amended contentions under the rules. That opportunity is a very narrow one as this Court has made clear in applying Rule 3-6 over the years.' Instead, the Toshiba Defendants are addressing the fact that the Court's continuance order (Dkt. 288) did not expressly address the dates for serving amended infringement and validity contentions under P.R. 3.6(a). The continuance order set the schedule for trial events, providing dates for jury selection, the pretrial conference, motions in ' Of course any amendment of the contentions which was not required by the Court's claims construction order would require Court permission following a showing of "good cause" under P.R. 3-6(b). This motion is addressed solely to amendments which are necessitated by the Court's claims construction ruling. limine, the pretrial order, jury instructions, and verdict forms. The continuance order also stated that "[all1 other deadlines are extended 60 days." The Toshiba Defendants seek clarification that the 60 day extension does not apply to the deadlines in the Second and Third Amended Docket Control Orders for complying with P.R. 3-6(a) (August 15th and August 30th, respectively). Normally, the P.R. 3-6(a) dates are pegged off the Markman ruling, not the trial schedule, and the parties have had ample time to consider the Claim Construction with respect to their contentions. As the Markman ruling issued on June 15,2007, and taking into account the limited scope of P.R. 3-6(a), the parties do not require even more time within which to submit amended contentions, if any. Moreover, as the Court is aware, mediations are scheduled for September 24-27 before former Judge Faulkner. At the very least, whatever amended contentions the plaintiffs believe are justified under P.R. 3-6(a) would advance the mediations by defining the final scope of infringement in this litigation. The absence of amended infringement contentions by the time of mediation could impair the mediation process as defendants will not know what plaintiffs truly consider to be at issue in this case prior to preparing for and participating in the mediation process. While the Toshiba Defendants have discussed their request for clarification of the P.R. 3-6(a) dates with plaintiffs on a number of occasions since the Court's continuance order, the parties have not been able to reach agreement.2 As the dates in the Second and Third Amended Docket Control Orders have already passed, the Toshiba Defendants ask that the deadlines be moved from the previous dates of August 15 and 30 to September 21 and October 5, 2 NEC agrees with this Motion and is the Toshiba Defendants' understanding that the ME1 Defendants also agree, however this may be subject to future clarification. respectively. Plaintiffs maintain that the continuance order extends the P.R. 3.6(a) dates to October 15 and October 30.
In support of their motion, the Toshiba Defendants point out that the local patent rules provide that the deadlines for serving amended infringement and invalidity contentions when required by the Court's claims construction ruling are set based on a fixed number of days after the Court's claim construction order - 30 days in the case of infringement contentions and 50 days in the case of invalidity contentions. P.R. 3-6(a). The rules also clearly and explicitly require that in order to submit amended contentions, the party claiming patent infringement must believe in good faith that the Court's claim construction ruling so requires. Id. The rules are independent of both the trial setting and any discovery events. As a result, the Court's continuance of the trial date should not affect the amended contention dates. In fact, the parties have already agreed to a schedule that pegs the deadline for any Markman-related amendments to the contentions to the Markman ruling. On March 31, 2007, Plaintiffs' counsel asked Defendants to agree to a pretrial schedule setting specific deadlines for these contentions with August 15 and 30 as the proposed dates for P.R. 3.6(a). Exhibit 1. Defendants responded that they could agree to firm dates so long as the linkage between the contention dates and the claim construction ruling was maintained. Exhibit 2. Plaintiffs agreed to Defendants' condition and drafted the Second Amended Docket Control order, which set the date for P.R. 3.6(a) amendments to infringement contentions to "[tlhe later of August 15,2007 or 15 days after Claim Construction Ruling" and invalidity contentions to "[tlhe later of August 30, 2007 or 30 days after Claim Construction Ruling." Dkt. 250. Subsequently, the entry of the Claim Construction Order on June 15 triggered the August 15 and August 30, 2007 deadlines. These dates have given the parties ample time to analyze the Court's claim construction ruling and submit amended contentions, if warranted under the rules. Without the agreement, these contentions would had to have been served much earlier - July 15, 2007 for the infringement contentions and August 4, 2007 for the invalidity contentions. The parties have had far more time than the 30 and 50 days ordinarily allowed under the rules. Plaintiffs have had twice as much time, or 60 days, to submit amended infringement contentions to the extent the rules permit such contentions, and Defendants have had over 70 days for their invalidity contentions. In addition, a sixty-day extension of the P.R. 3.6(a) dates as plaintiffs urge would have several negative consequences. First, such a long extension would prejudice the ability of Defendants' experts to investigate and test Plaintiffs' claims. Noninfringement reports are now due on November 17. If the sixty-day continuance were to apply to the P.R. 3.6(a) contention deadlines, the Defendants' experts will have only one month to analyze the accused products, or more likely, waste significant time addressing previously accused products that may no longer be part of this lawsuit. In a case involving microprocessor design and operation, any laboratory testing and investigation can be extremely time consuming. Plaintiffs' modified infringement contentions are instrumental to this work because they reveal what final products will need to be tested and what types of tests need to be carried out. The Third Amended Docket Control Order does not reference the Markrnan ruling for the contention deadlines because it was entered after those deadlines had passed. Furthermore, as noted above, mediation in this case is scheduled for the week of September 24, 2007. If Plaintiffs' schedule is adopted, amended infringement contentions would not be due until three weeks after the mediation. In such a situation, neither the Defendants nor the mediator would know Plaintiffs' ultimate infiingement theory, what products remain in the case, or the Defendants' financial exposure. It is difficult to imagine how a good faith mediation can occur without the parties knowing what is at stake. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Defendants to properly assess their settlement positions without Plaintiffs' amended infiingement contentions. The Toshiba Defendants contacted Plaintiffs just a few days after the Continuance Order was entered in an attempt to come to reasonable agreement for the contention dates, but the parties could not reach an accord. Instead, Plaintiffs maintain that the continuance applies to the P.R. 3.6(a) dates when it clearly does not. Because the previous deadlines have already passed
and recognizing that there may be confusion regarding this issue in view of the continuance order, the Toshiba Defendants ask the Court to set the deadline for compliance with P.R. 3-6(a)(l) to September 21, 2007 and for P.R. 3-6(a)(2) to October 5, 2007. Setting the 3.6(a)(l) date to September 21 will give Plaintiffs the maximum amount of time to consider whether any amended contentions are justified under the rules, while giving Defendants at least some minimum amount of time to review any amended contentions in preparation for the mediation. Moreover, these new dates would give the parties each an additional 6 weeks from the dates set in the Second and Third Docket Control Orders. For the foregoing reasons, the Toshiba Defendants ask the Court to set the deadline for compliance with P.R. 3-6(a)(l) to September 21,2007 and to October 5,2007 for P.R. 3-6(a)(2).
September 5,2007 Respectfully submitted,
IS/ Scott F. Partridge
Lead Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 00786940
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited and Patriot Scientific Corporation,
JURY DEMANDED
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.
TOSHIBA DEFENDANTS' AGREED MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF P.R. 3.6(a) DATES COME NOW, Defendants Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC ("the Toshiba Defendants"), seek the Court's permission for expedited briefing and resolution of the Toshiba Defendants' Opposed Motion for Clarification of P.R. 3.6(a) Dates, filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiffs TPL and Patriot have agreed to file their respective opposition papers on or before September 11, 2007. The Toshiba Defendants will file their reply on or before September 14,2007. WHEREFORE, the Toshiba Defendants respectfully pray that the Court grant this Motion for expedited briefing and resolution of their Opposed Motion for Clarification of P.R. 3.6(a) Dates.
September 5,2007 Respectfully submitted,
Scott F. Partridge
Lead Attorney
Weiter warten auf die Fonds die diesen "leckeren Köder" nun hoffentlich bald schlucken...
Respectfully submitted
Abenteurer
Long term Investor of PTSC
Arch Investment Conferences, Inc. will hold a live webcast beginning at 10:00AM EST, of its Micro-Cap conference on Thursday September 6 being held at the Warwick Hotel in NY. A panel of special guests will be leading the Q & A with the presenting companies, led by Josh Levine of ChangeWave.com
Presenting companies include:
Patriot Scientific Corp (OTCBB:PTSC)
Yellowhead Mining
XTL Biopharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:XTLB)
Gravity Co. Ltd (NASDAQ:GRVY)
BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMEX:BPA)
To listen to the webcast please visit:
http://www.informedinvestors.com/VC/ClientPage.asp?ID=45356
To All Friends of Patriot Scientific Corporation,
August was a good month for Patriot, but more than that, it was a record-breaking year! We released fantastic annual results, appointed a new board member, and opened a new publicity channel.
- We had terrific year-end results – the best in Patriot’s 20-year history. Our top-line “sales” for fiscal 2007 nearly doubled to $49 million. (Technically, our sales include only our microprocessor chips and the products >from Holocom. Most of our income is actually recognized through our equity stake in the joint venture through which we license our patents. It’s just one of those funny accounting rules. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Oxley.) Our net profit was $23.7 million, or $0.06 per fully diluted share. Obviously, Patriot Scientific is enormously profitable and we’re growing rapidly.
- Our cash position has also improved hugely over the previous fiscal year, growing by a factor of nearly 5x. We now have over $21 million in the bank, compared to just under $4 million this time last year. That puts us in a much stronger position to acquire other companies, technologies, rights, or equipment.
- Regarding our cash, I met recently with the board of directors and we decided not to pay out a dividend this period. We’ll revisit this issue regularly but for now I think we can put that cash to much better use in growing the company, as I hope to show you later this year.
- With our patent licensing activity running at the rate of about one new licensee every month, and with more than 300 potential licensees officially notified, we’ve got every reason for optimism. We’ve got many years of licensing deals and revenue ahead of us.
- So why isn’t the share price doing better? I get a lot of letters from shareholders asking, “Why didn’t you raise the share price this morning?” If only it were that easy. You know, I sometimes wonder if these people understand how free markets work. To borrow a phrase from the 19th century scientist Charles Babbage, “I am not rightly able to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” Share prices are controlled by supply and demand, not some big red button in my office.
- Nick Tredennick has joined our board of directors. As I hinted in our last letter, I’m thrilled that Nick has found the time to join us. I’ve known Nick for a number of years and I admire his balance of technological know-how and business sense. He also has an eye for spotting trends, which brought him together with George Gilder many years ago to write Dynamic Silicon and the Gilder Technology Report and to participate in the Telecosm tech-investor conferences. Nick’s going to review the acquisition candidates we’re evaluating and recommend some ideas of his own. His industry knowledge, corporate experience, and nose for good (and bad) investments will really work in our favor.
- I’m now writing a regular monthly column for Electronic Business that starts this month. This is a widely distributed electronic newsletter published by Reed Elsevier alongside big industry magazines like Electronic News and EDN (Electronic Design News). In addition to spreading the word about Patriot Scientific I’ll be writing about the intellectual property business, industry climate, business models, and related topics of the day.
- You may be getting a tax refund. As you know, we paid two dividends during calendar year 2006, and you will have received a Form 1099 that declared those dividends as taxable income. They actually weren’t taxable, and we sent out corrected 1099s, but some of you didn’t receive them. We’ve sent out the corrected form yet again, but just in case you still don’t receive it we’ve posted more information here.
M- ark your calendars for our next shareholders’ meeting on Tuesday, the 23rd of October. As before, we’ll hold the meeting at the La Costa Resort & Spa here in Carlsbad. Everyone’s welcome and you can find information on travel and hotels on our Web site.
With best regards for a good and profitable summer;
-Jim Turley
President/CEO
Patriot Scientific Corporation
--------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.6/991 - Release Date: 5.9.2007 14:55
Patriot Scientific Licenses Microprocessor Patents to DMP Electronics Inc.
DMP to Implement Patented Design Techniques in x86 Processors and Other Chips
Carlsbad, Calif. – September 7, 2007 –Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC), a leading intellectual-property licensing company, today announced that DMP Electronics Inc. of Taiwan has purchased an implementation license to the company’s microprocessor patent portfolio for use in DMP’s semiconductor devices.
“We’re pleased to welcome DMP Electronics to our group of global licensees,” said Patriot Scientific CEO Jim Turley. “DMP can now implement our technology at the chip level, such as in their embedded x86-compatible processors. This agreement shows how truly essential our technology has become in the development of advanced microprocessors everywhere.”
Commenting on the agreement, DMP Electronics President/CEO Daniel Tai said, “The design techniques detailed within the patent portfolio are essential in the development of advanced microprocessors such as our Vortex86SX flagship product.”
DMP Electronics becomes the 22nd global licensee of Patriot Scientific’s fundamental patent portfolio. Previously announced licensees include Intel, AMD, Hewlett Packard, Nokia, Casio, Fujitsu, Sony, Nikon, Seiko Epson, Pentax, Olympus, Kenwood, Agilent, Lexmark, NEC Corporation, Funai Electric, LEGO Group, SanDisk and the Sharp Corporation.
About DMP Electronics
Taiwan-based DMP Electronics was founded in 1989 and specializes in the design of embedded computer architectures. The company’s Vortex86SX is a high-performance and fully static 32-bit x86 microprocessor. Compatible with popular Intel chips and 32-bit operating systems such as Windows and Linux, the Vortex86SX chip is well suited to a broad range of end-user electronics products.
About Patriot Scientific
Patriot Scientific is a leading intellectual-property licensing company that develops, markets, and enables innovative technologies that serve the demands of fast-growing markets such as wireless devices, smart cards, home appliances and gateways, set-top boxes, entertainment technology, automotive telematics, biomedical devices, and industrial controllers. Headquartered in Carlsbad, Calif., information about the company can be found at http://www.ptsc.com.
An investment profile on Patriot Scientific may be found at http://www.hawkassociates.com/ptscprofile.aspx. Copies of Patriot Scientific press releases, current price quotes, stock charts and other valuable information for investors may be found at http://www.hawkassociates.com and http://www.americanmicrocaps.com. To receive free e-mail notification of future releases for Patriot Scientific, sign up at http://www.hawkassociates.com/email.aspx.
Zum Einstieg ist der Kurs ja ganz hübsch......
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Matzelbub" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Angehängte Grafik:
geld.gif
geld.gif
Bis jetzt sind heute lächerliche 80.000 Aktien an der OTCBB gehandelt wurden. Der Markt ist so dünn und es finden sich keine Zocker die das ausnutzen wollen. Da verstehe einer die Aktionäre.
Na ja, ich werde mich auf andere Dinge konzentieren - geht mir heute zu sehr an die Nieren...
Grüße Abenteurer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited and Patriot
Scientific Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.,
Panasonic Corporation of North America, JVC
Americas Cop, 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.
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF TPL AND NON-PARTY MOORE'S
MOTION TO STRIKE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF WILLIS E. HIGGINS
Over the past two and a half years, neither TPL nor Charles Moore (collectively "TPL") has shown any interest in safeguarding the alleged confidentiality of the communications at issue in their motion - all but one of which have been publicly available throughout that time.' TPL's motion ignores this issue, which was central to the Court's Hotline conference. The "sealed" exhibits filed by TPL correspond exactly to the public documents as follows.
Exhibit D = NDCA PACER Case 5:04-cv-00618JF; Doc. 135-2 (pp. 20-21)
Exhibit F (pp. 1-5) = NDCA PACER Case 4:04-cv-00439-SBA; Doc. 44
Exhibit G (pp. 1-3) = NDCA PACER Case 5:04-cv-00618JF; Doc. 135-2 (pp. 4-6)
Exhibit H (pp. 1-1 0) = NDCA PACER Case 5:O4-cv-OO6l8JF; Doc. 135
' This response is not filed under seal because its exhibits concerning the disputed communications are available to the public as marked on the exhibits themselves. (See Exh. 1-4.) (Exhibits are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Michael Hawes.) In addition, these four "sealed" exhibits of TPLYs Motion correspond exactly to the following exhibits of the Willis Deposition: D-9; F+3; G-6; and H+14. Three of the four deposition exhibits that TPL seeks to strike are public documents. The fourth is within the scope of the waiver created by the public dissemination of the other three. Both Charles Moore and TPL were parties to case 5:04-cv-00618JF and both
knew - in fact they were served with - papers containing several of the exhibits they now wish to strike. Knowing that those papers were made available on PACER (appropriately named Public Access to Court Electronic Records), neither Moore nor TPL has made any effort to this day to remove those documents from public view.2 Other materials were expunged from the court's records at the request of TPL. (See Exh. 7.) TPL and Moore, however, chose only to request the expungement of some materials - not the ones they seek to strike now. "The courts will grant no greater protection to those who assert the privilege than their own precautions warrant." United States v. Ryans, 903 F.2d 73 1, 741 n. 13 (10th Cir. 1990). TPL and Moore cannot knowingly allow materials to remain for years in the public eye and then belatedly decide that the disclosed communications are privileged. The Motion to Strike should be denied. It is clear that they know how to do so. Earlier in this case, Toshiba informed TPL that TPL had filed a motion containing Toshiba's confidential information. (See Exh. 5.) Within a day, TPL acted to remove that information fiom public access. (See Exh. 6 between docket nos. 277 and 278.) Comparing the timeliness of that action with the years that these communications have been in public view reflects the lack of importance to TPL and Moore of the allegedly privileged nature of the documents.
FACTS
A. TPL and Moore Had Notice That the Materials They Now Seek to Treat as Privileged Were Put in Public View on January 14,2005.
Charles Moore and TPL were the first two named defendants in Patriot Scientific Corp. v. Moore, et al., Civil Action No. 5:04-cv-00618-JF, filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California on February 13, 2004 ("'618 case"). (See Exh. . Patriot was also a party in Intel Corp. v. Patriot Scientific Corp., Civil Action No. 4:04-cv-00439-SBA, filed
in the District for the Northern District of California on February 2, 2004 ("'439 case"). (See Exh. 9.) The issues in these cases were handled together to a great extent, for example, Moore's motion for an extension was handled by an order in the '439 case. (See Exh.. 9, at docket item 54 and Exh. 10.) As a result, at least Moore was aware of the events in both cases. On April 20, 2004, Patriot filed a motion in the '439 case that included an affidavit in support by Willis Higgins. (See Exh. 2 and Exh. 9, at docket item 44.) That affidavit
is an exact copy of exhibit 3 of Willis Higgins' deposition. (Compare Exh. 2 with Exh. F of Motion to Strike.) Today, the affidavit remains available on PACER. (See Exh. 2.) On January 14, 2005, Patriot filed a Memorandum in Opposition in the '61 8 case that included an affidavit in support by Willis Higgins. (See Exh. 4 and Exh. 8, at docket item 135.) That affidavit is an exact copy of exhibit 14 of Willis Higgins' deposition. (Compare Exh. 4 with Exh. H of Motion to Strike.) The affidavit remains available on PACER. (See Exh. 4.) The affidavit attached a series of exhibits including an October 1, 1990 letter (See Exh. 3) and a September 12, 1992 memo (See Exh. 1). All of the affidavit exhibits are available on PACER. Several papers were filed under seal in the '618 case, including the details of TPL's attempts to seal various documents. (See Exh. 8, between docket items 146 and 147). The above-identified papers, however, were not sealed. (See Exh. 8, docket items 167 and 180). B. Plaintiffs Allowed Questioning Without Objection Concerning the Exhibits That They Now Seek to Strike. During the deposition of Willis Higgins on August 16, 2007, counsel for the parties had a Discovery Hotline call with the Court. As identified at the beginning of the call, counsel for both TPL and Moore attended Mr. Higgins' deposition. Both made privilege objections and instructions throughout the deposition. With regard to some questions, however, no such objections or instructions occurred and the witness answered the questions. As a result of the Hotline call, certain questions - regarding the accuracy of the statements made in the deposition exhibits - were allowed by the Court subject to the right for any party to file a motion
to request that "this information . . . is privileged." See Hotline call transcript at 10. The motion provided by the order was limited to striking testimony in response to the court-ordered questions. Instead, each request by TPL and Moore to strike portions of the deposition transcript includes both a portion prior to the Hotline call and a portion fiom after that call. The prior portions were not subject to any objection, instruction, or this Court's Hotline order.
ARGUMENT
A. TPL and Moore Ignore Their Failure to Safeguard the Confidentiality of the Communications That They Now Ask the Court to Treat as Privileged. TPL's entire argument appears to be stuck in 2005. TPL refuses to acknowledge, even though some of its "sealed" exhibits include PACER headers, that the subject matter in question has been left in public view for two or three years, depending on the communication. Instead, TPL confines its analysis to whether Fish's waiver destroyed Moore's privilege. This case, however, presents unique circumstances all of which occurred after Judge Fogel ruled on the disqualification question. None of TPL's authority addresses a situation where a party was made aware of the public filing of a communication, did nothing to remove that communication from public view while at the same time sealing other documents, and then years later seeks to treat that communication and its subject matter as privileged. TPL has no excuse for failing to address this
issue. The Court identified the filing of the affidavit with the California Court as a key issue during the Hotline call. See transcript at 10. TPL's fiduciary duty argument is a red herring - in this case Mr. Higgins was compelled to testify as a result of a subpoena. The deposition at issue here is fundamentally different from what occurred in California where Mr. Higgins appears to have voluntarily provided an affidavit. Whether or not Mr. Higgins can voluntarily provide testimony damaging to Mr. Moore's inventorship story is irrelevant to TPL's attempt to strike testimony offered under oath pursuant to a subpoena. There is a reason that some attorney communications are privileged, while others are merely confidential. TPL's theory would effectively erase the distinction between privileged and unprivileged, but confidential, material. For example, TPL's assertion of the Doe case illustrates why the fiduciary duty is inapplicable as a privilege to block discovery. In that case, the question is whether "a lawyer seeks to act adversely to his former client." See Doe v. A Corp., 709 F.2d 1043, 1046 (5th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added). TPL cannot extend Doe to cover situations where a lawyer is compelled to give factual testimony concerning communications, the privilege of which has been waived. TPL takes an untenable position that it can strike any testimony by Mr. Higgins that is contrary to its desired version of the facts based on the duty of loyalty. None of TPL's cases extend the bar on voluntary actions by a lawyer to create a privilege against testimony compelled by a subpoena.
B. TPL and Moore Have Waived Any Privilege of Moore's By Knowingly Failing to Safeguard the Confidentiality of the Communications. TPL and Moore have failed to address the three-year public dissemination of the subject matter that they now seek to suppress. The deposition questions at issue merely seek the accuracy of the public deposition exhibits. The assertion of a privilege requires, at minimum, a consistent intention to treat the communications as confidential. "The confidentiality of communications covered by the privilege must be jealously guarded by the holder of the privilege lest it be waived." United States v. Ryans, 903 F.2d 73 1, 741 n. 13 (10th Cir. 1990). Instead, TPL and Moore knowingly allowed the communications to reside in public until they surfaced in an ongoing dispute. Only at that point, do they seek to hide the communications. TPL relies solely on Moore's privilege in seeking to strike the deposition testimony and exhibits. See Motion to Strike, pp. 10-1 1. Moore, however, as a defendant in the '618 case and aware of the '439 case, did not act to safeguard the confidentiality of Higgins' communications. "When the nature of the privilege is understood, the nature of the waiver becomes equally clear. The attorney-client privilege can be waived by any actions of the client which are inconsistent with an intention to keep the communication, shielded by the privilege, confidential." In re Lorazepam h Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation, 2001 WL 1795665, at *2 (D.D.C. July 17, 2001). Both the communications and the waiver in this case took place in California. California law recognizes that conduct like Moore's results in a waiver of the privilege. See Cal. Evid. Code $ 912(a) (Waiver can be based on "other conduct of the holder of the privilege indicating consent to the disclosure"). In view of Moore's knowledge that the communications at issue in the Motion to Strike were made public, Moore's actions in the '618 litigation to seal other documents constitutes a waiver of any attorney-client privilege that Moore had. The only document at issue not posted on PACER, deposition exhibit 15, is described by TPL's Motion as communicating the same subject matter. In other words, it is within the scope of the waiver created by the other disclosures. Waiver extends to all other communications relating to the same subject matter. GFI, Inc. v. Franklin Corp., 265 F.3d 1268, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (applying fifth circuit law).
CONCLUSION
TPL and Moore's Motion to Strike the testimony of Mr. Higgins, offered pursuant to subpoena, should be denied because the exhibits at issue have been in the public domain with Moore's knowledge for years. The Motion to Strike should also be denied as to the portions of the testimony taken prior to the Hotline call, because neither counsel for TPL nor counsel for Moore objected to that testimony and that testimony is neither covered by the Hotline order nor properly subject to the Motion to Strike.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited and Patriot Scientific Corporation,
JURY DEMANDED
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.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL A. HAWES IN SUPPORT OF THE TOSHIBA DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF TPL AND NON-PARTY MOORE'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF WILLIS E. HIGGINS
I, Michael A. Hawes, declare that:
1. I am a partner of the law firm Baker Botts L.L.P., counsel in the above-captioned case to Defendants Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; and Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC. I am over 21 years of age, a resident of Texas, a citizen of the United States and otherwise competent to make this declaration.
2. This declaration is prepared based on my personal knowledge and information I reviewed.
3. I have supervised the collection and copying of the documents submitted herewith as Exhibits to Defendants' Response to Plaintiff TPL and Non-Party Moore's Motion to Strike Deposition Testimony of Willis E. Higgins.
4. Exhibits 1-4 are true and correct copies of documents printed from the PACER Service Center.
5. Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of my July 24, 2007 letter to Roger Cook and Eric Jacobs.
6. Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the docket sheet printed from the Court's CMIECF electronic case filing system.
7. Exhibits 7-10 are true and correct copies of documents printed from the PACER Service Center
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED this 7th day of September, 2007, in Houston, Texas.
Michael A. Hawes
BoonMarket.com Launches Coverage of Patriot Scientific Corporation
M2 "Press Wire "
M2 PressWIRE - September 10, 2007 - SANTA BARBARA, CA. - BoonMarket.com announced today their renewed interest in Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC). PTSC has been mentioned on BoonMarket.com in the past and recent developments within the company have compelled BoonMarket.com to closely follow the company once again.
Don't be crazy enough to ignore the riveting insight we provide. In-depth analysis of this and other companies can be viewed through BoonMarket.com's special email alerts. You can sign up for these alerts for free (limited time only) by visiting http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101186369563.
--------------------------------------------------
PTSC news from 9/07/07:
Patriot Scientific Licenses Microprocessor Patents to DMP Electronics Inc.
Patriot Scientific Corporation, a leading intellectual-property licensing company, today announced that DMP Electronics Inc. of Taiwan has purchased an implementation license to the company's microprocessor patent portfolio for use in DMP's semiconductor devices.
"We're pleased to welcome DMP Electronics to our group of global licensees," said Patriot Scientific CEO Jim Turley. "DMP can now implement our technology at the chip level, such as in their embedded x86-compatible processors. This agreement shows how truly essential our technology has become in the development of advanced microprocessors everywhere."
--------------------------------------------------
About BoonMarket.com
BoonMarket.com has become the premier stop for those investors who wish to experience huge profits via up-and-coming publicly traded companies. For more information, please see our contact information below.
PR Newswire
September 10, 2007: 05:31 PM EST
CARLSBAD, Calif., Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Patriot Scientific announced today that Denso Wave Incorporated has purchased a license for the company's microprocessor-related patent portfolio. Headquartered in Tokyo, Denso Wave becomes the 23rd licensee of the company's valuable portfolio and the third licensee in two weeks.
"We're gratified that our chip technology is being so widely adopted by such a broad cross-section of the industry," said Patriot Scientific CEO Jim Turley. "From Denso Wave's industrial robots and data-capture equipment to our other licensees' consumer and computer products, it's clear we're providing real value."
The strength of the company's patent portfolio was underscored by the June 15, 2007 Markman ruling by the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. The patents describe valuable techniques for improving chip speed, reducing power consumption and improving performance, all of which are interesting and useful to systems and semiconductor manufacturers worldwide.
About Patriot Scientific
Patriot Scientific is a leading intellectual-property licensing company that develops, markets, and enables innovative technologies that satisfy the demands of fast-growing markets for wireless devices, smart cards, home appliances, network gateways, set-top boxes, entertainment technology, automotive telematics, biomedical devices, industrial controllers and more. Headquartered in Carlsbad, Calif., information about the company can be found at http://www.ptsc.com.
An investment profile on Patriot Scientific may be found at http://www.hawkassociates.com/ptscprofile.aspx. Copies of Patriot Scientific press releases, current price quotes, stock charts and other valuable information for investors may be found at http://www.hawkassociates.com and http://www.americanmicrocaps.com. To receive free e-mail notification of future releases for Patriot Scientific, sign up at http://www.hawkassociates.com/email.aspx.
About Denso Wave
Headquartered in Tokyo, Denso Wave Incorporated specializes in the development, manufacture and sales of automatic data-capture equipment, industrial robots, programmable controllers and related apparatus and systems. The company's mission is to enhance worldwide productivity with an expanding line of advanced automated equipment that supports product management and customer-demand forecasting as well as robots that promote factory automation and labor reduction. For more information, visit http://www.denso-wave.com/en/index.html.
About the MMP Portfolio
The Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by the privately held TPL Group and publicly held Patriot Scientific Corporation . The portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is becoming widely recognized that these 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.
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) and Alliacense are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). PTSC is a trademark of Patriot Scientific Corporation. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
CONTACTS:
Patriot Scientific Media Relations
John Radewagen
Vice President, Corporate Communications
The Hoffman Agency
408-975-3005
408-219-9199 (mobile)
jradewagen@hoffman.com
www.hoffman.com
Patriot Scientific Investor Relations
Hawk Associates
Frank Hawkins or Ken AuYeung
(305) 451-1888
info@hawkassociates.com
Mindpik for TPL/Alliacense
Tom Rigoli, 650-969-5986
rigoli@mindpik.com
Top of page
More Markets
Tough session on Wall Street
Commercial paper said to get sweeter
Fed officials to Wall St.: not so fast
The Hot List
Car show preview: Frankfurt
Ben Stein: Tales of the crash of 2007
10 reasons for the iPhone price cut
§
Top Stories
Fed to Wall St.: Cool your heels
Wachovia sees mortgage biz growth
Tough session on Wall Street
Ben Stein: Tales of the crash of 2007
Billionaire bets on Bear Stearns
Special Offer:
Get a FREE TRIAL Issue!
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Sanke" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Es fehlt nur noch ein Flugzeugbauer und ein großer Automobilkonzern, dann dürfe PTSC zu ziemlich jeden größeren Industriezeig, in dem Chips eingesetzt werden, mit einer Lizenz versorgt haben.
Viele Grüße
Abenteurer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FUJITSU LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant NEC Electronics America, Inc. (“NEC Electronics”) hereby amends its response to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (doc. no. 191) and presents its Second Amended Counterclaim, as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Upon information and belief, NEC Electronics admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Second Amended Complaint”).
2. Upon information and belief, NEC Electronics admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Second Amended Complaint.
3. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
4. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
5. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
6. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation with prejudice.
7. NEC Electronics admits the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Second Amended Complaint.
8. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc. (“NEC Display”) with prejudice.
9. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation of America (“NEC America”) with prejudice.
10. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Unified Solutions, Inc. (“NEC Unified”) with prejudice.
11. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
12. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
13. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
14. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
15. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. NEC Electronics admits the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint because Plaintiffs have alleged a cause of action under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. NEC Electronics denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph of the Second Amended Complaint.
17. NEC Electronics admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over NEC Electronics by virtue of NEC Electronics conducting business in this district, and that, therefore, venue in this district is proper over it. NEC Electronics denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint directed to it. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint with respect to each defendant other than NEC Electronics and, accordingly, denies such allegations in paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint.
THE PATENTS
18. NEC Electronics admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,598,148 (“the ‘148 patent”) is attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit A, that it appears on its face to have issued on July 22, 2003, and that it is entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock.” NEC Electronics denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 18 of the Second Amended Complaint.
19. NEC Electronics admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 patent”) is attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit B, that it appears on its face to have issued on September 15, 1998, and that it is entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock.” NEC Electronics denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 19 of the Second Amended Complaint.
20. NEC Electronics admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,784,584 (“the ‘584 patent”) is attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit C, that it appears on its face to have issued on July 21, 1998, and that it is entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Using Instructions That Operate Within Instruction Groups.” NEC Electronics denies each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 20 of the Second Amended Complaint.
21. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph.
22. NEC Electronics admits that it believes that Patriot is a proper and necessary party plaintiff in this action and that defendants did indicate that they might seek to dismiss this action for failure to join Patriot if Patriot was not joined as a plaintiff. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 22 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies such allegations in this paragraph.
23. Assuming that the reference to “Moore” is to Mr. Charles Moore, NEC Electronics admits that it has not asserted that Mr. Moore need be a plaintiff in this action. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 23 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies such allegations in this paragraph.
INFRINGEMENT BY MATSUSHITA DEFENDANTS
24. – 32. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 24-32 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in those paragraphs.
INFRINGEMENT BY NEC DEFENDANTS
33. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation with prejudice.
34. NEC Electronics denies the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Second Amended Complaint.
35. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC America with prejudice.
36. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 36 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Display with prejudice.
37. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Unified with prejudice.
38. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation with prejudice.
39. NEC Electronics denies the allegations in paragraph 39 of the Second Amended Complaint.
40. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC America with prejudice.
41. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 41 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Display with prejudice.
42. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Unified with prejudice.
43. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Corporation with prejudice.
44. NEC Electronics denies the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Second Amended Complaint.
45. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 45 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC America with prejudice.
46. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 46 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Display with prejudice.
47. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 47 of the Second Amended Complaint and, accordingly, denies the allegations in this paragraph. NEC Electronics answers further that Plaintiffs have filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice dismissing NEC Unified with prejudice.
INFRINGEMENT BY TOSHIBA DEFENDANTS
48. – 62. NEC Electronics is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 48 - 62 of the Second Amended Complaint
and, accordingly, denies the allegations in those paragraphs.
63. All allegations not specifically admitted herein are denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NON-INFRINGEMENT
64. NEC Electronics does not directly infringe, contributorily infringe, or induce infringement of, and at all relevant times to this action, has not directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘148, ‘336, and/or ‘584 patents.
INVALIDITY
65. The claims of the ‘148, ‘336 and/or ‘584 patents are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112 and/or 133.
UNENFORCEABILITY
66. Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement of the ‘148 and ‘336 patents (“the Asserted Patents”) are barred because those patents are unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct.
UNENFORCEABILITY COUNT 1:
67. At least Drew Hamilton, Esq., engaged in inequitable conduct in the prosecution of application ser. no. 09/124,623, which became U.S. Pat. No. 6,598,148. Mr. Hamilton was substantively involved in the prosecution of application ser. no. 09/124,623.
68. Sometime before December 31, 1999, employees of Patriot Scientific Corporation made the decision to abandon patent application ser. no. 09/124,623.
69. Mr. George Shaw, an employee of Patriot Scientific Corporation, was the principal liaison of Patriot Scientific Corporation to its patent attorneys. Both Mr. Shaw and Mr.
Hamilton were aware that there was an intent to abandon the patent application ser. no. 09/124,623.
70. The patent application ser. no. 09/124,623 went abandoned on May 2, 2000 for failure to timely file a proper response to an office action mailed on January 31, 2000.
71. On April 29, 2002, Mr. Hamilton filed a declaration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, attesting that the entire delay in failing to file a proper response to the office
action mailed January 31, 2000, was unintentional.
72. Mr. Hamilton, through his declaration, intentionally deceived the United States Patent and Trademark Office in order to recover a previously abandoned patent application for his client, Patriot Scientific Corporation.
73. The deception was material, because otherwise no patent would have issued.
UNENFORCEABILITY COUNT 2:
74. At least Mr. Shaw engaged in inequitable conduct during the prosecution of patent application ser. no. 08/484,918, which became U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,336. Mr. Shaw was substantively involved in the prosecution of application ser. no. 08/484,918.
75. During 1992, Mr. Shaw was a contractor to Nanotronics Corporation (“Nanotronics”) involved in design work concerning a microprocessor related to the ShBoom microprocessor (“Nanotronics Microprocessor”).
76. Engineers working for Nanotronics, including Mr. Shaw, intended to implement in the Nanotronics Microprocessor a critical component of the claimed subject matter of U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,336: a ring oscillator system clock.
77. At some point in early 1992, engineers working for Nanotronics decided to forego the use of a ring oscillator system clock in the Nanotronics Microprocessor because of the risk that a microprocessor using such a clock would not work.
78. Mr. Shaw was aware of this decision by Nanotronics engineers and was aware of the deficiencies in a ring oscillator system clock in the 1995-2000 time frame. Mr. Shaw further worked with one or more engineers at Patriot Scientific Corporation, the successor to Nanotronics, to correct flaws in the design of the ring oscillator system clock disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,336.
79. Mr. Shaw was the principal liaison and technical contact of Patriot Scientific Corporation for its then patent attorney, Willis Higgins. In that capacity, Mr. Shaw attended several interviews during 1997 and 1998 with the Examiner assigned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to patent application ser. no. 08/484,918.
80. Despite believing that a ring oscillator system clock would not work as claimed in patent application ser. no. 08/484,918 or that undue experimentation would be required to achieve a microprocessor with a functioning ring oscillator system clock, Mr. Shaw told the Examiner that a ring oscillator system clock would work to drive a microprocessor at its fastest safe operating speed, thus conveying the impression that a ring oscillator system clock was an improvement over other clocking systems. In particular, Mr. Shaw failed to tell the Examiner that Nanotronics had abandoned the design because it likely would not work.
81. Mr. Shaw intentionally deceived the United States Patent and Trademark Office in order to expedite the allowance of patent application ser. no. 08/484,918.
82. The deception related to material facts which, if they had been fully disclosed to the Examiner, would have allowed the Examiner to make a prima facie rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 1.
LACHES
83. On information and belief, all or some of Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred by the doctrine of laches.
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff NEC Electronics America, Inc. alleges its Counterclaim as follows:
1. Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff NEC Electronics America, Inc. (“NEC Electronics”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and maintains a principal place of business in Santa Clara, California.
2. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and maintains a principal place of business in San Jose, California.
3. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware and maintains a principal place of business in San Diego, California.
4. NEC Electronics asserts a Counterclaim for declaratory relief under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, in particular, Sections 271 and 285. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), 2201 and 2202.
5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
6. In their Second Amended Complaint, TPL and Patriot (“Plaintiffs”) allege that they (along with Charles Moore) are the owners of the right, title and interest to the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents and that TPL has the exclusive right to enforce and license these patents. Plaintiffs further allege that NEC Electronics has infringed the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents.
7. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and NEC Electronics by virtue of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in this action.
8. The ‘148, ‘336, and/or ‘584 patents are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, and/or 133.
9. NEC Electronics has not directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘148, ‘336 and/or ‘584 patents. 10. The ‘148 and/or ‘336, patents are unenforceable for the reasons stated in paragraphs 66 – 82 of NEC Electronics’ First Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, which paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully herein.
11. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling NEC Electronics to an award of its attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs in this action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff NEC Electronics prays for:
A. A judgment dismissing the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
B. A judgment providing that Plaintiffs shall not be awarded any relief on their Second Amended Complaint, including without limitation, any award of damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and/or injunctive relief.
C. A judgment declaring each claim of the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents invalid.
D. A judgment declaring unenforceable each of the ‘148 and ‘336 patents.
E. A judgment declaring that NEC Electronics has not directly infringed, contributorily infringed, or induced infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘148, ‘336 and ‘584 patents.
F. A judgment deeming this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding NEC Electronics its attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs in this action.
G. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Case 2:05-cv-00494-TJW Document 306-2 Filed 09/10/2007
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. and Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC,
Defendants.
JURY DEMANDED
TOSHIBA CORPORATION’S, TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.’S, TOSHIBA AMERICA
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.’S, AND TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, LLC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THEIR SECOND AMENDED ANSWER COMES NOW, Defendants Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc, and Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC. (“Toshiba Defendants”) seeking the Court’s permission to file and serve their Second Amended Answer to Plaintiffs Technology Properties Limited’s and Patriot Scientific Corporation’s Second Amended Complaint (Attachment A). Plaintiffs do not oppose this Motion. WHEREFORE, the Toshiba Defendants respectfully pray that the Court grant this Motion and permit the amended answer to be filed and served.
DATED: September 11, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
Scott F. Partridge
Lead Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 00786940
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 11, 2007, TOSHIBA CORPORATION’S, TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.’S, TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.’S, AND TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THEIR SECOND AMENDED ANSWER was served electronically, via CM/ECF, on all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to such service under the Court’s local rules. Any other counsel of record will be served via facsimile and certified mail, return receipt requested.
Robinson Vu
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counsel for the Toshiba Defendants discussed the above Motion with counsel for Plaintiffs on September 10, 2007, and all counsel have indicated they are in agreement with this
Motion.
Robinson Vu
Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC)
TWST: What is Patriot Scientific Corporation?
Mr. Turley: Patriot Scientific is a high-tech
company outside of San Diego that’s been around
for 20 years. We are a publicly held high-tech company
and like most high-tech firms that are 20 years
old, we have developed a number of different products,
including radar technology, communication
equipment and ISDN technology. More recently the
company developed a 32-bit microprocessor chip
that we sold through the 1990s and in the early part
of this decade. The chip was very innovative and
sold reasonably well; in fact, we still sell the chip to
this day. But something that came out of that chip
development is that we were granted a handful of
patents on some of the technologies that fit into the
chip and, much to our surprise and delight, those
patents turned out to be enormously valuable and
helpful to us and to the market at large.
So, for the last couple of years, since the
summer of 2005, we have been offering those
patents under license to pretty much every chip
and microprocessor company in the world. It’s
been enormously successful for us and in the span
of just two years, we have already licensed 21
companies to our patents and we have a list of literally
more than 300 companies still to go.
TWST: Give us an idea of the overall platform. Is it relying on the one set of technology or is there additional development going on?
Mr. Turley: The patents were granted just
a few years ago during the development of our microprocessor
chip, and they have many years left
to go. The patents expire around 2015, so we’ve
got a long road ahead of us. There is a portfolio of
the patents; that is, we license them as a bundle
rather than having people pick and choose which
of the patents is applicable for their product. We
say, “You know what? Just take the whole bundle
at once and that way your full product line is covered
moving ahead and backward.” So we license
the portfolio of patents and they apply to pretty
much every microprocessor chip made.
It’s pretty boring to list details of a patent but
broadly speaking, they enable technologies to make
the chips run faster, which of course is something
everybody wants to do. The patents also cover ways
to save energy and use less electricity, which, again,
is something everybody wants to do. In our analysis,
we’ve discovered that nearly every chip company
in the world is making use of this technology
and therefore it is an ideal patent licensee.
TWST: You are saying risk of obsolescence is not near term?
Mr. Turley: No. We are not even halfway
through the life of these patents. We are licensing
firms at the rate of about one a month; as I said,
we’ve got 21 licensees so far; companies like Intel
and AMD took licenses early on. Hewlett-Packard
is a licensee. Companies like Casio, Pentax, Fujitsu,
Nikon, Lexmark — the list goes on and on. These
are big companies that are using Patriot Scientific’s
technologies in just about every conceivable type of
product from computers to digital cameras to photocopiers
— it can be almost anything.
TWST: What’s the drag as far as signing companies? Is it simply balancing your esources against the deals to be made? Are there ways to speed up the process? Does it just have its own timing?
Mr. Turley: It’s a little bit of both.
Although we are really happy with the rate at
which we have been signing licenses, of course
we prefer it to be faster. With 300 plus companies
still to go, I’m going to die an old man before I
can sign all of them at this rate. So having said
that, we are happy with the rate, but I would prefer
it to be quicker.
The drag initially was that people just
didn’t realize that they were using technology.
There is fair amount of education involved in
showing people that, “gee, you are using this
technology, you’ve put it in your products and
they are working very well, but golly, we invented
this a few years ago,” and we so we offer
them an opportunity to purchase the patent portfolio.
There is some initial resistance up front
simply because people are not aware. We think
that awareness is going to pick up and we have
some evidence that the license rate is increasing.
Now that companies like Sony, AMD, Intel,
Hewlett-Packard and the others are taking licenses,
it’s becoming clear to everybody else
that it is something they are going to need to do
in order to continue to innovate their own prod-
Company Interview:
Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC) -- Part Two
TWST: What’s the financial snapshot of the company today — balance sheet, P&L? What are the strengths? What items are you focused on for improvement?
Mr. Turley: The company is doing fantastically
well. We just filed our 10-K for the fiscal
year 2007. It could hardly be any better. Our top
line is about $49 million. That’s about double what
it was the year before that. The company has no
debt to speak of, no debt whatsoever. We bought
back outstanding warrants and reduced the overhang.
We are immensely profitable, as you might
expect, with $49 million in licensing revenue coming
in. We have got more than $20 million in cash
in the bank that we are ready to deploy to expand
the company in the future. And, again, we have
every expectation of more licensing revenue coming
in for many years. So the revenue, the cash
hoard, the shareholder equity, all of that looks like
it’s going up and to the right in the future. It is
looking extremely good for us.
TWST: What models, what strategies have you looked at as faras use of that cash? Obviously, the future business may be more dependent on how well you steward as opposed to how well you license.
Mr. Turley: True enough, the licensing
has been very, very good for us in the last couple
of years and the company has even paid out cash
dividends, not once, not twice, but three times,
which almost never happens for a Pink Sheet
company such as ours. We’ve paid three dividends
to our long-time shareholders, which made
them extremely happy. Going forward, we may
do that again. But more than that, what I’m looking
for is to turn that cash hoard into investments.
What I would like to see Patriot Scientific do is
start developing new products and selling new
products into the market, whether that be software,
whether that be microprocessor chips
again, or whether that be black boxes that go into
the industrial, consumer or automotive markets. I
think we are going to invest that cash into R&D
or acquisitions or some combination of the two,
so that we return to being a product company in
the next 12 to 15 months.
TWST: What historically has been the shareholder base with the company? Has that base undergone any recent changes?
Mr. Turley: It hasn’t really. We are extremely
broad-based, with 16,000 shareholders,
none of whom holds more than about 8% of the
company. There are no major shareholders. There
is nobody with undue influence on the company.
It’s spread out among retail shareholders, institutional
shareholders, private equity firms; it’s all
across the map.
TWST: In your discussions with the investment community, are there any recurring questions or misperceptions? Is the story understood?
Mr. Turley: Unfortunately, the story is not
very well understood, which is part of my job as
the President and chief communicator of the company,
to explain the fantastic opportunity we’re sitting
on. The patents that the company holds are
fundamental to pretty much every sort of chip
making, and, as I said, many of the largest companies
out there have already purchased a license.
We’ve got hundreds to go; it’s like holding a patent
to water. Everybody needs it, all we need is our
share, our recognition; it is something that the
company developed that we have a right to license.
Obviously, we are very happy to license it. We
don’t litigate; we don’t go around suing people for
using the technology. We’d much rather license
C O M P A N Y I N T E R V I E W — P A T R I O T S C I E N T I F I C C O R P O R A T I O N
people in very friendly and open and businesslike
way. It’s working for us very well. A lot of Patriot
Scientific’s long-time shareholders get that, but
people who are new to the firm don’t quite realize
what a gold mine the company is sitting on, how
fundamental our technology is, how vital our technology
is, and the enormous upside that is ahead of
us in licensing our technology to electronics companies
around the world.
TWST: Introduce us to your top-level management team, two or three of your key individuals.
Mr. Turley: I’m Chief Executive; I have
been on board for the last three months. I succeeded
our previous Chief Executive, David Pohl. Our
Chief Financial Officer has been on board for a
couple of years and he has done a fantastic job of
righting the financial ship, as it were. We’ve gone
through Sarbanes-Oxley, Section 404, you name it.
We have the most fantastically squeaky-clean balance
sheet I have ever seen. If people are interested
in it, they can download the 10-K. Again, we have
no debt. The financial health of the company never
been better and we have our CFO and Controller to
thank for that. We have a very active Board of
Directors, people who have been with the company
for a long time. We have an Audit Committee, and
we have technology people. In fact, we just recently
appointed a new Board member. Dr. Nick
Tredennick from Silicon Valley has joined our
Board of Directors and he has a fantastic track
record in technology startups and technology investments,
and we are really, really pleased to have
him on board. With his guidance and the guidance
of the rest of Board, we are really looking forward
to the next phase in Patriot Scientific’s growth.
TWST: At this point, what should investors focus on as we track and assess your performance? Are there key metrics or events or combinations to focus on? What should matter to the investor? What matters to you?
Mr. Turley: Right now, I think the key
thing that investors focus on is new licensing revenue.
As I said, we have licensed 21 companies so
far. We have 300 still to go and so what everybody
watches for is the announcement of new license.
Who did we sign today, who can we sign tomorrow?
So that’s the pipeline, that’s the short-term
upside. Longer term, we are going to take the
money that we received from our licensing and
turn that toward acquisitions or R&D or some
combination of those, so that we start a second revenue
stream. In addition to the licensing revenue,
which will continue for many years, we want to
start a second revenue stream as a product company.
Again, it could be software, it could be services,
hardware or it could be microprocessors. We
will announce that when we are ready. And then,
for the very long term, for our longer-term investors,
we have the wonderful combination of
both licensing fees from our patent portfolio and
the product revenue from our second product line,
which puts us in a very strong position to do more
acquisitions, to fund our own R&D, to be completely
self-sustained, keep the debt off the balance
sheet and to watch the Patriot Scientific share price
grow and grow
TWST: What compels investors today to include Patriot as part of their current portfolios and part of their longer-term investment strategies?
Mr. Turley: The number one thing that
makes the company exciting as an investment is
that it is sitting on a goldmine of fundamental electronic
technologies that pretty much every chipmaker
in the world needs but doesn’t yet have. So
that represents fantastic upside for us. If investors
need confirmation that the patent portfolio is as
C O M P A N Y I N T E R V I E W — P A T R I O T S C I E N T I F I C C O R P O R A T I N
valuable as we say, they only have to look at the 21
companies that have already bought them. Sony,
Epson, Nikon, AMD, Hewlett Packard, Intel, companies
like that. Those companies don’t roll over
and sign a license for frivolous reasons. They are
truly buying into fundamental technology that they
use in their product. So that establishes the credibility
and value of our patent portfolio. It doesn’t
take a lot of imagination to see the enormous upside
ahead of the company. But, as if that weren’t
enough, we are going to take the revenue from that
patent licensing and build a whole second revenue
stream based around a shipping product. We intend
to do that either through acquisition or through
R&D or some combination of those. And it’s going
to be soon; it’s going to be, I think, in the next 12
to 18 months when we’ll show the world what our
second product line is. So we’ll have really a twopronged
approach for building Patriot Scientific
for the future.
TWST: Does it actually pay to stay public, to go through that expense when you have a plan that can be executed?
Mr. Turley: Now that we are public, we intend
to stay so. We have been through the Sarbanes-
Oxley compliance, we have a fantastic 10-K. We
have a great financial team in place. Going public
is very difficult. If we weren’t public already, I’d
certainly think twice about it. But now that we are
here and we have this process down cold, I don’t
see any reason to take the company private.
Furthermore, it gives us a little bit of added leverage
as we go out on the acquisition trail because if
we were to acquire a private firm, we would then
offer them a public listing, which may be attractive
to them. We have our big war chest but we might
also be attractive to potential acquisition targets. I
think we have got it pretty well figured out.
--------------------------------------------------
Das deutet darauf hin, das er kurzfristig mit hohen Einnahmen rechnet.
Wenn er sagt:
Furthermore, it gives us a little bit of added leverage
as we go out on the acquisition trail because if
we were to acquire a private firm, we would then
offer them a public listing, which may be attractive
to them. We have our big war chest but we might
also be attractive to potential acquisition targets.
dann hat er vor eine Tochtergesellschaft an die Börse zu bringen, was den Wert unserer Shares deutlich ansteigen lassen wird.
Somit bleibt PTSC eine Holdinggesellschaft, die Einnahmen aus PDS, Holocom und der neuen Beteiligung erzielen wird.
Ich sehe PTSC bei Turley in guten Händen. Gefällt mir was der Kerl macht und auch sagtt. Der Kurs gefällt mir im Moment zwar nicht so ganz aber das wiederum ist auch wieder eine Gelegenheit um nach zu kaufen.
schönen Abend noch..
Last update: 9/13/2007 11:59:01 AM
Motion Grants Partial Judgment of Non-Infringement to Remove ARM as a Defendant, and Further Expedites Appeal from the Court's US Patent '584 "Instruction Groups" Claim
CUPERTINO, Calif., Sep 13, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The TPL Group today announced that its motion to simplify and streamline the Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio infringement trial in the US District Court in the Eastern District of Texas has been granted. Accordingly, a partial judgment of non-infringement on certain products stipulates the following:
-- The "instruction groups" elements of the accused claim of US Patent 5,784,584 (US '584) is 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.
-- All accused ARM core families (ARM7, ARM9, ARM9E, ARM10E, ARM11), as well as the ARM Cortex microprocessor core family, are deemed non-infringed under the Court's claim interpretation of "instruction groups," thereby removing ARM as an intervener in the Texas Court trial.
Related moves initiated by The TPL Group to streamline the trial have included:
-- Stipulation that 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.
-- 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 approved moves initiated 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.
According to Dan Leckrone, Chairman of The TPL Group, 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. "The ruling reflected well the skill of the Texas Court in dissecting and dealing with a very complex trial over the past 15 months."
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, Bull, LEGO Group, and Denso Wave 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: TPL Group
MindpikTom Rigoli, 650-969-5986rigoli@mindpik.comCopyright Business Wire 2007
abenteurer ???
nassie ???
danke vorab für ein statement ...
Das sind alles so Gerichttermini und das besondere Englisch ist mir auch nicht immer ganz verständliche. Aber, da PTSC deshalb gleich mal deshalb eine Pressemitteilung rausgibt, bedeutet wohl dass es sich um einen für TLP / PTSC positiven Schachzug handelt.
Ich glaube die hatten in der Vergangenheit Schwierigkeiten, die Unterlagen zu beschaffen welche Produkte der Angeklagten die Patente nun genau verletzen. Da die Technologie scheinbar in jedem 2. Chip steckt, kann man dann sicherer die Schadenersatzsumme bestimmen.
Ist allerdings meine Interpretation und ich lasse mich da gern korrigieren.
Grüße Abenteurer
TPL bekommt jetzt mehr Zeit, um konkrete Verletzungen dieser beiden Patente durch einzelne Prozessoren bzw. Endprodukte der Angeklagten zu belegen und letztendlich auf ganze Gruppen von Prozessoren und Endprodukten umzulegen.
Patent Nr. 5,784,584 wird für diesen Prozess als "nicht verletzt" eingestuft und ARM scheidet als Prozessbeteiligter aus.
Gleichzeitig hat TPL aber auch das Recht, sofort gegen diese Verfügung Einspruch beim Berufungsgericht einzulegen, um in Zukunft auch dieses Patent durchzusetzen.
Das Pferd wird sozusagen von der anderen Seite aufgezäumt, da ansonsten der Prozess in eine undendliche Geschichte aufgrund der Beweisführung münden könnte, wie sich das schon im MH andeutete.
Meines Erachtens sehr positiv zu werten, da wir nun mit einem Ende dieses Verfahrens spätestens im Januar rechnen können.
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Matzelbub" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
guten morgen,
auch im arm-board hat man verstanden:
Arm will eventually get served on the '336 and '148 patents. The customers in the suit will likely pay in the hundreds of millions, and soon after Arm will be approached to buy a liscense. And if you don't believe that just ask the 23 companies that bought a liscense and the 80 at the table. And the 300 plus more who've been approached.
Start looking under the couch for change.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_A/t…