Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
in response to Can someone by network
posted on Jun 28, 12 08:25PM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]
As for tomorrow, the Markman ruling from Judge Ware requires only that the parties supply a schedule for further briefing of the remaining issue, not that such briefs actually be submitted by tomorrow. While it is possible that the parties might choose to submit, I would consider such highly unlikely, and would expect only the schedule required. Also, the Markman ruling requires that the parties advise the Court by tomorrow whether they will agree to Magistrate Judge Grewal to preside over the remainder of the case.
Next week, on July 3, there will be a hearing on the issue of whether TPL's amended ICs are adequate under the Patent Local Rules, which, as I recall, will be handled by the Special Master. The last time this issue was before the Court, I had expected the ruling would take awhile, but the Special Master ruled later on in the day of the hearing itself. Of course, Special Master has a work schedule just like everyone else, and things may have changed since last time so that he cannot now act as quickly --- however, especially due to his familiarity with the issue, there is a good chance the ruling will be issued on July 3, or very shortly thereafter.
Hope this helps. Best wishes to all.
in response to Re: When will the fat lady sing? by pandg222
posted on Jun 28, 12 01:48AM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]
If DL sues you, you have no choice but to pay or fight. If it cost a lot less to settle then fight, most will settle, especially if they realize that if they lose at the trial, it will cost at least 10 times or possibly much more then the origin settlement request, it's a no brainier.
If you team up with 10 other infringers, economy of size might make it worth fighting.
We don't need to have 24 claims infringed to go after nuisance value, just a few will do and many targets. having many targets makes up for quality. DL can do this while we or the T3s are appealing this or that.
I'm sure every one realizes this, the only problem is when will DL start. If DL believes he has a quality MH that will bring in 3 to 4 billion dollars. He will wait until the MH results or the trial is over. Otherwise, he could have already started.
He also has another reason to hold off the MMP marketing program, Brown and CM. Obviously, if he can arrange to keep what he has ripped off and pay back PTSC, Brown and CM from his end of future profits, by waiting them out. He will wait until they give in. He might even get them to accept 50 cents on each dollar of debt.
Sooner or later, DL will go after that MMP money, with or without a Brown, CM settlement. Can he make up totally for any lost time, I think he can or at least 80% of it. He has to price his product very fairly under the circumstances. If it is not rated "A", he can not get even "B" pricing on high volume sales. Until we get a rating, no one can calculate what a volume discount price should be.
We have to sell discount, because of the time factor except for a few big targets at the end of the 6 crawl-back years.
Ts and os
GLTAL
Ps.: Kann ich mir zwar nicht vorstellen (das wären bis zu 10 Dollar pro Aktie)- das ist nur möglich bei 100% Gewinn vor Gericht und so wie es aussieht, ...???- aber in den USA ist ja alles möglich
Ronran zum weiteren Verlauf - nächstes Datum 3. Juli 2012.
posted on Jul 01, 12 07:23PM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]
I don’t usually bother calling other attorneys about PTSC-related issues because, as I’ve said many times, all of us could call 10,000 of them and we would probably get close to a 50% split on whatever issue is under consideration. And even if we got a 100% consensus, the fact remains that the only legal opinion that will carry any weight is the one that comes from the judge.
Nevertheless, after reading the recent Markman ruling, I became both intrigued and concerned about two issues, so I got a referral to a patent attorney from a business client of mine, and I spoke with that attorney, who I’ll refer to as “Jim”, this past Friday. Remember, what follows is merely his opinion — even if he’s right, Judge Ware (or whomever makes further rulings in our case) could still rule otherwise.
My first inquiry to Jim was about the issue of validity, and my concern was based primarily on footnote 37 of the Markman ruling, which pertains to the ‘336. In that footnote, Judge Ware raises the validity issue, but uses the language, “...the validity of the patent claim at issue” (emphasis mine) — the footnote addresses only claim 1 of the ‘336. Nevertheless, I was concerned because Markman rulings usually address and affect only infringement. I certainly don’t consider myself anywhere near being expert in patent law (which, obviously, is why I called Jim), but in all of the Markman rulings I’ve read over the last several years, I can’t recall seeing any that have specifically raised validity in any fashion.
With this in mind, I asked Jim whether the invalidation of one claim of a patent would invalidate the patent as a whole, or whether the remaining claims (assuming they didn’t use or incorporate the same language) would stand. Although Jim was careful to state that there can always be exceptions, the answer, in general, is that the entire patent would not be invalidated merely because one claim is found to be invalid. He also explained to some extent the role of “dependent” and “independent”claims in this context, but I’m not sure that’s really applicable in the present scenario.
I certainly hope we prevail on the “ring oscillator” issue because it will affect some of the other MMP patents as well, and in my very “non-tech” opinion, it seems to me that TPL has the better position. However, it appears to me that the above could be important in terms of some of the other claims of the “336. I seem to recall that Ease, and perhaps several others, have spoken to some extent about this subject over the last few weeks, and I apologize if I’m merely stating the obvious or if I’m covering old ground. I get beyond my understanding very quickly as to tech stuff, so I’ll leave it to those who have such knowledge to comment further if they so choose.
My second inquiry to Jim spoke to the issue of whether prior art previously considered and distinguished in PTO re-exam proceedings could nonetheless be “revived” (my term) and used during litigation to the detriment of the patentee. You may recall my post a couple of weeks ago on this subject, which came from a post on the EDIG board — the website article cited therein seemed to indicate that the answer to this inquiry would be “no”. However, if that is correct, then why is Judge Ware talking about “Talbot” when the PTO examiner has already determined that “Talbot” is not prior art?
On this question, Jim indicated that he has never seen such a thing occur, but that, since the prior PTO exams were “ex parte” in nature (i.e.., they did not include the T3), it is possible that the Court may be able to validly reconsider the patents cited as alleged prior art during those proceedings. However, it was also his opinion that, even in that event, the party now relying on such prior art in litigation would need to prove its application by the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard — this is considerably beyond the “more likely than not” standard of regularly applied in most civil cases, but less than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal cases. It is considered a very difficult standard to meet, which, in this instance, is good for TPL, and therefore also good for us.
I hope I haven’t bored everyone to tears with this lengthy post, but I felt that if these subjects were important enough for me to inquire about by asking a “real life” patent attorney, then you deserved to know the results and to have them explained in sufficient detail. Best wishes to all.
Ist ja alles schön und gut, wir brauchen aber harte Fakten, ein klares Urteil zu gunsten von PTSC und entsprechende Lizenzeinnahmen und -nachzahlungen.
Bis dahin bleibt es leider bei Wunschvorstellungen, wie lange geht dieser Mist nun schon so, warum ist dieser Richter unfähig eine eindeutige Entscheidung zu treffen, wofür wird der bezahlt? Es wird langsam mal Zeit für Klarheit.
Meine Meinung, Vermutung ist aber äußerst negativ.
Was meinst Du/Ihr ???
Vom Bob gibt es kein lebenszeichen
TPL (und Acer) wollen ein neuer Richter - der alte geht in Rente
TPL konnte die Patente nicht richtig überzeugend "RÜBER BRINGEN" - (nach meiner Meinung Punkte sieg für T3)
TPL haben wahrscheinlich vergessen das Patent 148 zu verlängern - Chuck´s Seite?
http://www.colorforth.com/blog.htm
zur Zeit läuft bei PTSC wohl alles schief und es ist die letzte Chance!!!
also...ist zwar ne ganz, ganz kleine chance...aber sie ist da....
also...kopf hoch !
;-)
Patent term: Laufdauer eines Patentes. In den USA in der Regel 20 Jahre ab dem Anmeldungsdatum einer nonprovisional application. (Wenn das Patent auf einer Anmeldung basiert, die vor dem 8. Juni 1995 eingereicht worden ist, ist die Laufdauer in der Regel entweder 20 Jahre ab dem Anmeldungsdatum oder 17 Jahre ab dem Erteilungsdatum, abhängig davon, was in der längeren Laufdauern resultiert.)
Patent number: 6598148
Filing date: Jul 29, 1998
Issue date: Jul 22, 2003
Application number: 09/124,623
http://www.google.com/patents/US6598148
All patents (other than design patents) that were in force on June 8, 1995, or that issued on an application that was filed before June 8, 1995, have a term that is the greater of the "twenty-year term" or seventeen years from the patent grant. See 35 U.S.C. 154(c). A patent granted on an international application filed before June 8, 1995, and which entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 before, on or after June 8, 1995, will have a term that is the greater of seventeen years from the date of grant or twenty years from the international filing date or any earlier filing date relied upon under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c). The terms of these patents are subject to reduction by any applicable terminal disclaimers (discussed below).
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2700_2701.htm
Nasdaq OTC Bulletin Board 0,086 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Frankfurt 0,057 72.000 0,055 0,082 51.250
Stuttgart 0,063 50.000 0,063 0,076 50.000
Tradegate 0,055 20.000 0,055 0,065 22.500
München 0,081 20.000 0,058 0,082 5.000
Berlin 0,057 20.000 0,055 0,065 50.000
Stuttgart ist im bid immer etwas höher und im ask immer etwas tiefer als der Rest und immer 50000 Stück.So ein Zufall aber auch.
Stuttgart 0,063 50.000 0,063 0,075 50.000
Frankfurt 0,06 29.000 0,06 0,081 81.250
München 0,081 5.000 0,06 0,081 5.000
Nasdaq OTC Bulletin Board 0,085 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Tradegate 0,065 20.000 0,06 0,081 20.000
Berlin 0,06 20.000 0,06 0,081 20.000
man könnte diese Bid/Ask Schei***e gar nicht beachten, bzw. dies würde erst gar nicht passieren, wenn es um PTSC entsprechend positiv stehen würde....
Also....Top Firmenpolitik, vernüftige Statements seitens des Unternehmens zur "Lage der Nation", Kauf durch BOD selbst, um zu zeigen....wir stehen hinter PTSC, Gerichtsentscheidung, usw. usw. usw.
Aber solange nichts im Sinne der Shareholder passiert, solange ist das Ding ein "faules Ei"
Name Kurs Bid Stk. Bid Ask Ask Stk.
Nasdaq OTC Bulletin Board 0,081 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Stuttgart 0,063 50.000 0,063 0,072 50.000
München 0,081 5.000 0,06 0,09 5.000
Tradegate 0,065 20.000 0,06 0,09 20.000
Frankfurt 0,058 84.000 0,06 0,09 62.583
Berlin 0,058 20.000 0,06 0,09 20.000
Plaintiff, Barco’s, “Motion to Strike Portions of TPL’s Third Amended Infringement
Contention” came on for hearing on July 3, 2012. Extensive briefing and exhibits having
been reviewed and oral argument heard, it is ordered as follows:
The motion is DENIED.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The present motion is based upon local Patent Rule 3-1(c) which requires parties to
“identify specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each
Accused Instrumentality.” In the present third iteration of TPL’s infringement contentions,
TPL has succeeded in doing this.
This motion follows Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Order of September 20, 2011 (Doc.
223) and the Special Master’s Recommended Discovery Order No. 2 (Doc. 332) dated
February 24, 2012, both of which orders required TPL to “either provide information
concerning the products at issue or explain how and/or why information concerning any
products not at issue is relevant to its IC’s.” (Doc 223, Page 7, Lines 12-14).
The focus of moving party Barco’s motion is on the question of whether TPL’s
infringement contentions adequately specify where “each limitation of each asserted claim
is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” While the third amended infringement
contentions are lengthy and while they rely, to a significant degree, on what best be
described as “generic” white papers and declarations which deal more with the generalities
of the technical field involved and the underlying laws of physics and chip production, they
do, when read carefully, meet the burden of local Patent Rule 3-1(c). This is true as to all
three patents at issue, the ‘336, ‘749 and ‘890.
The greatest part of Barco’s moving papers is directed at whether or not the various
limitations involved in the three patents in suit are in fact manifested in the Barco products.
This, however, is a question for a later day, a subject for discovery and, eventually, proof.
At the present stage, the question is whether or not TPL has adequately specified where
each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality. This
TPL has done. Local Patent Rule 3-1(c); Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc., 2002
WL 32126128 (N.D. Cal. August 13, 2002); Shared Memory Graphics, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99166 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2nd 2011)
TPL asserts, correctly, that its infringement contention advise Barco as to where
each limitation found. By way of illustrative example, as to Claim 1 of the 336 Patent, after
citation to the book “Design of High Performance Microprocessor Circuits,” Chapter 6, by
Anatha Chandra and to a declaration by its expert, Dr. Oklobdziga, TPL goes on to state
that “This limitation is found within the Virtex-5 chip itself.” That chip is incorporated within
the accused “JPEG DCPD-2000 Encoder/Decoder.” Whether TPL can back up that
assertion as the case moves forward is a question for another day.
TPL provides similar specification of the location of where each limitation of each
asserted claim is found within the accused products.
The parties have ten days from the date of this Order to file any objection
und da noch nicht mal ein statement für die aktionäre kommt, denke ich ist der kurs dort, wo er hingehört.
schade.
die 0,05 werden wir bestimmt auch noch wieder sehen.
17-Jul-2012
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Financial Statements and Exhi
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
On July 11, 2012, Patriot Scientific Corporation (the "Company") entered into a Licensing Program Services Agreement (the "Program Agreement") among Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC ("PDS"), Alliacense Limited, LLC ("Alliacense"), Technology Properties Limited, LLC ("TPL"), and the Company and an Agreement (the "TPL Agreement") between TPL and the Company.
Pursuant to the Program Agreement, PDS has engaged Alliacense to negotiate licenses of certain microprocessor science and design patents ("Patents") and to pursue claims against violators of the Patents, in each case, on behalf of PDS, TPL, and the Company. The Program Agreement continues through the useful life of the Patents, which is defined as the greater of the period of time when any of the Patents are no longer subject to legal protection or such Patents are reasonably perceived to have commercial value. Pursuant to the TPL Agreement, TPL and the Company agreed to certain allocations of obligations in connection with the engagement of Alliacense.
On July 17, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement among Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC, Alliacense Limited, LLC, Technology Properties Limited, LLC, and the Company whereby the Company agreed to certain additional allocations of obligations relating to the Program Agreement.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(d) Exhibits. The following material is filed as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K:
Exhibit
Number
10.7 Licensing Program Services Agreement effective July 11, 2012 among
Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC, Alliacense Limited, LLC, Technology
Properties Limited, LLC, and the Company.*
10.8 Agreement effective July 11, 2012 between Technology Properties Limited,
LLC and the Company.*
10.9 Agreement effective July 17, 2012 among Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC,
Alliacense Limited, LLC, Technology Properties Limited, LLC, and the
Company.*
* The Company has requested confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The confidential portions of this exhibit have been omitted and are marked accordingly. The confidential portions have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
This Agreement is entered into by and between PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (“PTSC”), and TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC (“TPL”) hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the “Parties”.
WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the Parties to facilitate the selection of a new MMP Program Vendor by PTSC to replace TPL; and,
WHEREAS, the following collateral undertakings between the parties may expedite that process.
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1700395#message