Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006

mehr Kohle auf dem konto bei PTSC und das schlägt sich dann wiedetr bei den Quartalszahlen nieder. Mir im Moment wurst, ob der kurs rauf oder runter geht. früher oder später wird er schon wieder anziehen. Spätestens im Januar rechne ich damit. ;-)  

"heißen" Phase gelaufen sein....

Mal sehen, ich bin geduldig wie ein Faultier.

Grüße Abenteurer  

sollte nicht 5 Tage nach Ende der Mediation ein Report rauskommen ?  

New Pacer--TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED AND PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.'S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited and Patriot
Scientific Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Matsushita Electrical 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.

9WARD)(JURY)
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED AND PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.'S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
Plaintiffs Technology Properties Limited ("TPL") and Patriot Scientific Corporation ("Patriot") (sometimes collectively "Plaintiffs") hereby answer the Second Amended
Counterclaims of Defendant Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. ("TAEC") by referring to the numbered paragraphs of the Counterclaims as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 is not an allegation to which a response is required.
2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, on that basis, admit the allegations of Paragraph 2.
3. Plaintiffs admit the allegations of Paragraph 3.
4. Plaintiffs admit the allegations of Paragraph 4.
5. Plaintiffs admit the allegations of paragraph 5 for jurisdictional purposes only.
6. Plaintiffs admit the allegations of paragraph 6 for jurisdictional purposes only.
7. As to the allegations of Paragraph 7 (mislabeled as Paragraph 5), Plaintiffs admit that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas.
8. Plaintiffs admit the allegations of 8 (mislabeled as Paragraph 6).
9. As to the allegations of Paragraph 9 (mislabeled as Paragraph 7), Plaintiffs admit
that in their Complaint, they alleged that they are the owners of the Asserted Patents. Plaintiffs
further admit that they have accused TAEC of infringing the Asserted Patents, directly and by contributing to and inducing others to infringe the patents.
10. Plaintiffs admit that they filed a complaint against TAEC alleging infringement of the Asserted Patents and, therefore, there is an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Plaintiffs deny all other allegations of Paragraph 10 (mislabeled as Paragraph 8).
11. Plaintiffs deny the allegations of Paragraph 11 (mislabeled as Paragraph 9).
12. Plaintiffs deny the allegations of Paragraph 12 (mislabeled as Paragraph 10).
13. Plaintiffs deny the allegations of Paragraph 13 (mislabeled as Paragraph 11).
14. Plaintiffs deny the allegations of Paragraph 14 (mislabeled as Paragraph 12).
15. Paragraphs 15 -26 (mislabeled as Paragraphs 13 - 24) are not allegations to which responses are required. However, to the extent responses may be required, the allegations are
denied.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment of the Court against TAEC as follows:
a. a declaration that TAEC's accused products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 and 6,589,148;
b. a declaration that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 and 6,589,148 are valid;
c. a declaration that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 and 6,589,148 are enforceable;
d. an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and;
e. such other costs and relief as the court only deems just and equitable.
DATED: October 4, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Roger L. Cook
TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP
Roger L. Cook, CA State Bar No. 55208
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 4th day of October, 2007, with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date.
Roger L. Cook
 

Ich kopiere mal die Stellungnahme von Wolf aus dem Agoracom Board hier rein.
Denke hat schon jeder gelesen.
Evtl. ist einer so nett und kann mal seine kurzinfo dazu hier reinstellen.
Ich fand es sehr schwer zu lesen...im gegensatz zu anderen dinegn..
wolf und ronran sind ja bekannt ...
nessie hat evtl. ne idee, was das bedeuten könnte...oder abenteurer ..

Hier :

As promised...

A little late probably about the mediation and I am still awaiting my lawyer friend to address a few questions I sent to him a few days ago regarding MSJs.

Here it is and I am only posting what I deem to be informative:

As an aside, I have mediated hundreds of cases as a lawyer for one of the parties. I have also been through mediator training, and have occasionally served as the actual mediator.

Although I continue to feel that the case will settle just based on national litigation statistics alone, I have never expected, and do not now expect, that a settlement occurred last week during the mediation conference --- it is difficult to keep such things secret, and as a result, if settlement had occurred, the share price would not have faltered. I do not know whether the EDoT rules require a "formal" report to Judge Ward that would show up on PACER, but in any event, I expect we will hear, sooner or later, that there has been no settlement to date. The important point is that this is not bad news.

It is not at all unusual that a case does not settle at the mediation conference, yet for settlement to occur at some later time ... negotiations rarely cease just because the mediation conference is concluded. Indeed, one purpose of mediation is to at least narrow the gap between offers previously made between the parties, and thereafter, negotiations can continue up to, and even during and after, the trial itself. Although the parties can simply negotiate between themselves, it is common that the mediator will stay with the case, exchanging telephone calls and/or letters between the lawyers, in order to continue to work toward settlement --- this can go on for weeks, or even months.

Assuming I am correct that there has been no settlement to this point, my feeling, again, is that it will occur later --- one of two scenarios is most likely. First, settlement could happen within the next 30 days, and this is because the case is still “fresh” on the minds of all concerned and they thus remain motivated, before they move on to attend to other matters. If that doesn’t occur, then the second possibility is that settlement would occur prior to the Christmas holidays --- in situations where both sides know in their “heart of hearts” that a case should be settled, neither the lawyers nor the clients will want to spend the holiday season preparing for trial, and for this reason, the January 8 trial setting is a powerful motivator. I may have mentioned this to you before, but legal fees increase geometrically during the 30 days prior to any big trial --- everything must be put in “final form”, witnesses must be exhaustively prepped for their testimony, examination and cross-examination of every witness must be prepared, and, in general, every “i” must be dotted and every “t” crossed. With at least 15 lawyers on our side and some 40 representing the defendants collectively, in addition to high-dollar experts located around the globe, you can begin to understand the magnitude of what I am talking about. Large multi-national corporations will spare no expense in the initial stages of a case, but when it comes down to actually entering the courtroom after settlement negotiations have proved fruitful to any realistic extent, the prospect of significantly multiplying legal fees, together with the realization that there is still risk present in the case and it is now imminent, becomes a significant factor. And, of course, there is also a powerful motivation on the part of the plaintiffs, who could go to trial and get nothing. My prediction, therefore, is that, if the case does not settle within the next 30 days, we will see such occur by mid-December. Obviously, all of this is based on the premise that one side or the other has not taken a “We will never settle at any cost” mindset --- but those cases are few and far between.

(Regarding Summary judgements and basic answers)
An Answer is an Answer, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a motion for summary judgment, which people will instantly recognize ... such a motion will actually be entitled exactly what it is, i.e., a “Motion for Summary Judgment”. It will not be called anything else, and no other kind of pleading will be so entitled. It is what it is.

As to summary judgment strategy, I have said many times that I expect both sides to file MSJs. All of the following is necessarily on an IMO basis, but due to the favorable nature of the Markman ruling, TPL/PTSC will file based on infringement. And for the same reason, the J3 will file based on invalidity --- they virtually must do so, because otherwise, they risk the likelihood that Judge Ward will rule favorably on our motion, thus judicially declaring infringement as a matter of law while, at the same time, leaving the issue of invalidity in the hands of a jury of laymen. Ain’t gonna happen. Plus, remember that the recent KSR decision from the United States Supreme Court greatly expanded the concept of “obviousness” in favor of defendants, so that the J3 would be nuts not to make such an attempt. Also remember the Forgent case, in which the defendant stipulated to infringement, then went to trial and won the entire case on invalidity --- the plaintiff-patentee got nothing. Simply stated, “invalidity trumps infringement”, i.e., only a valid patent can be infringed --- so, if you had the potential “trump card” in your hand, wouldn’t you play it? I certainly would.


... the mere fact that motions (MSJs) are filed doesn’t mean that either will necessarily be granted. If I am wrong and the J3 don’t file an MSJ based on invalidity, that would be very significant --- I think the chances they won’t file are maybe 5%, but one never knows for sure.


So, as an overview, assuming there was no settlement last week, negotiations will continue, with or without the mediator, all the way up to and including the trial (unless a motion for summary judgment on invalidity is actually granted). And if the case has not settled by the “dispositive motion deadline” set by Judge Ward, we will likely see motions for summary judgment filed by both sides. None of this should cause anyone to panic --- it is all very routine at this level of litigation.

Sorry to be so long-winded. Perhaps some of this will help.

I hope both of you are well. Best wishes.

---------------------------------------------

That is the end of the correspondence

GLTAL
 

ist viel Bla, bla - Spekulationen, Vermutungen - Möglichkeiten.
Nichts dem ich große Bedeutung beimessen würde.

Er denkt eine außergerichtliche Einigung wäre möglich oder auch nicht....oder hat vielleicht auch schon stattgefunden, zieht Statistiken zu Vergleich heran.

Die wären bescheuert, würden sie sich jetzt noch auf eine soche Einigung einlassen:
Dann müsste man den ganzen Vorstand wegen Einfältigkeit abwählen.

Grüße Abenteurer  

hi und danke...
habe ich ähnlich gelesen..
aber ich denke, wenn die sich mit zahlungen über 500 millionen (pro firma) einigen würden...
würde ich das machen...
is ja immer ne frage, wie hoch die einigung wäre...
nachteil wäre, dass andere firmen ggfs. wieder verklagt werden würden oder ??
naja..ich bleib wie immer positiv ... und long ...

cu und danke
 

Outcome. Within five days of the mediation conference, the mediator must file a report indicating whether all required parties were present and whether the case settled, was continued with the consent of the parties, or was declared at an impasse by the mediator. If the parties reach settlement, lead counsel must notify the court by filing a settlement agreement signed by the parties and the mediator within ten days of the mediation conference.

Die 5 Tagesfrist ist abgelaufen. Evtl. sind wir in der Zehntagesfrist für ein Agreement.
Es ist auffällig, das es zu Toshiba und NEC eine Erwiderung gegeben hat, aber Matsushita
und JVC nicht. Könnte dies ein Hinweis sein ?

In den anderen Boards wird zu diesem Thema heftig spekuliert.

LG

Nassie

 

Sandale gehoben. Wenn das kein Hinweis war !  

 

die 10 Tage wären morgen um. Das würde doch passen zur neuen Börsenwoche, wobei ich denke, dass die Meldung wenn, jedenfalls morgen abend nach US - Börsenschluss kommt. Dann haben alle Broker die Nacht Zeit sich auf die neuen Kurse einzustellen.
Wahrscheinlich wird PTSC jedoch auch ein, zwei Stunden ausgesetzt, wenn es während der Handelsstunden kommt.
Mein Tipp: Aussetzung und Erstnotiz 1,95 €
Es gibt eine mehr als spannende Woche.  

das wünschen sich wohl viele....
das ist wohl nicht so nahe an der realität  

nachboerslich am columbus day?

nach der boerse ist vor der boerse;)

mfg kram

 

ist für die US-Börse kein Feiertag, die ist offen.  

bin da wohl ner fehlinfo aufgesessen*schaem*

mfg kram

 

einigt - oder der Wunsch ist der Vater des Gedanken.

@Matze
Mir ist´s auch schon wieder passiert - verdammt, erzähl´ ich Dir bei Gelegenheit genauer, geht gerade erst los.

Abenteurer
 

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/576601  

hmmm.......
was soll das denn wieder ......
diese ganzen techn. dinge übertreffen meine phantasien und kenntnisse um ein vielfaches ...  

Technisch verstehe ich das auch nicht vollständig. Es wird aber die Festigkeit der Patente von PTSC bestätigt.  

New Pacer--DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO RECAPTION THIS CASE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Technology Properties Limited,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Fujitsu Limited, et al.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO RECAPTION THIS CASE
This action was begun on October 24, 2005, when plaintiff Technology Properties Limited filed its Complaint for Patent Infringement against twenty (20) defendants. Since that time, the parties involved in this action have changed substantially. For example:
(1) Another plaintiff (Patriot Scientific Corporation) was added at the request of defendants;
(2) Eleven (11) defendants have been dismissed from the action as a result of settlement (Fujitsu Limited, Fujitsu General America, Inc., Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc., Fujitsu Computer Systems Corp., Fujitsu Microelectronics America, Inc., Fujitsu Ten Corporation of America, NEC Corporation, NEC America, Inc. (which was dismissed when it went out of existence, D.I. 127), NEC Display Solutions America, Inc., NEC Corporation of America (formerly NEC Solutions (America), Inc.), and NEC Unified Solutions, Inc.); and
(3) Two additional parties (ARM Ltd. and ARM, Inc.) were added by intervention on or about September 18, 2006, and have now been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s September 12, 2007 Rule 54(b) Order (D.I. 314). In order to have the caption more accurately reflect the parties that are currently involved in this case, defendants conferred with plaintiffs about correcting the caption to make it more accurate and plaintiffs do not oppose this Motion. Accordingly, in order to update and make the caption more accurate, defendants request that the case caption be recaptioned as follows:
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.
A proposed Order directing the Clerk to recaption the case in this fashion is being submitted with this Motion. Accordingly, defendants respectfully request that their Motion be granted.
Dated: Oct. 9, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa S. Mankofsky
Guy N. Harrison, State Bar No. 00000077

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 9, 2007, a copy of DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO RECAPTION THIS CASE was served by electronic mail on all counsel of record.
/s/ Lisa S. Mankofsky  

Wen es interessiert: Der ganze Fall ist kompliziert.
Und die Defendants versuchen, die Patente ungültig zu machen, indem Sie behaupten, Moore hätte nichts datu beigetragen.
Der disrict court hat aber entschieden, er sei Miterfinder.

Die Quelle:
http://vlex.com/vid/20894443  

Danke für die Stellungnahme und Info !  

--------------------------------------------------

http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/...e=10%2DQ&RcvdDate=10%2F10%2F2007&pdf=


 

PTSC (.44) Patriot Scientific Reports Q1 FY '08 Results

Thursday, October 11 2007 9:20 AM, EST PR Newswire "US Press Releases "
CARLSBAD, Calif., Oct. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Patriot Scientific (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC) reported operating results for the first fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2007 . At August 31 Patriot had $22.3 million in current assets inclusive of $20.4 million in cash and liquid investments. Current liabilities of $8.6 million include $7.7 million in income taxes payable that are expected to be remitted over the remainder of the fiscal year. The company has no long-term debt. During the quarter the company repurchased approximately 5 million shares of outstanding common stock and retired warrants representing another 2 million shares for a total of $3.6 million . During September and October the company repurchased the remaining 5 million warrants, thus retiring all remaining warrants held by Lincoln .
The quarterly results included $1.2 million as the company's share of the net loss of Phoenix Digital Solutions, the joint venture entity that is owned half by Patriot Scientific and half by The TPL Group . Phoenix Digital receives its income from licenses purchased by manufacturers who use technologies contained in the MMP Patent Portfolio.
During the three months ended August 31, 2007 the company had incurred a net loss of $1.96 million or $0.01 per diluted share. During this period Phoenix Digital entered into technology licensing agreements with aggregate proceeds of $1.5 million . The dollar amount for each licensing deal varies, depending upon factors that include, among other things, the relevance of the patents to each licensee's revenue and the extent to which the patented technology is incorporated into specific products.
"Our portfolio licensing strategy through our joint venture with TPL has provided the company with over $75 million in earnings to date," said Patriot Scientific CEO Jim Turley. "The unpredictable nature of the licensing business has not dampened our enthusiasm about the potential for continued strong returns."
Since the inception of the program in January 2006 through August 2007 , twenty-one licenses have been signed with major electronics companies. Three additional licenses were signed in the month of September and are not reflected in the results of the first fiscal quarter.
Turley reconfirmed that Patriot Scientific is continuing to actively evaluate sources and opportunities to create additional recurring revenue through possible joint ventures or acquisitions, all with the goal of increasing shareholder value.
"We have been evaluating investment alternatives that will provide Patriot with attractive returns apart from the licensing business," Turley said. "Although many interesting opportunities have been uncovered to date, we are being highly selective in choosing candidates that we believe provide a good fit within Patriot coupled with prospects for significant growth. The recent addition of Nick Tredennick to our board of directors and the appointment of Cliff Flowers as CFO have provided additional resources in the furtherance of this effort," Turley added.
Patriot Scientific will hold its annual meeting of shareholders Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at the La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, California . Proxy statements were distributed to all shareholders no later than October 5, 2007 . Further information is available on the company's web site at http://www.ptsc.com.
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 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 (OTCBB: PTSC). 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

Patriot Scientific Investor Relations
Hawk Associates
Frank Hawkins or Ken AuYeung
(305) 451-1888
info@hawkassociates.com

TPL/Alliacense Media Relations
Shawn Clark, (408) 446-4222
shawnc@tplgroup.net

SOURCE Patriot Scientific Corporation