Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
The answer to that is not only a resounding "yes, they will", but further, that IMO we should all be hoping HTC will in fact do so in our case in the NDCA.
How many times does the lesson need to be taught before it sinks in and the existing shareholders will accept it? That lesson, of course, taught again today, is that settlements in the absence of a judgment of infringement are unlikely to significantly lift our stock price. Sure, if we ever have a settlement in the mid to high double-digit millions per infringer, that might be a different story, but the problem with that scenario for the near term is that, based on the history of some 100+ settlements to date, it hasn't occurred since early 2006. Furthermore, there is no objective basis at this time upon which to believe it has happened in the present case with Acer or Amazon.
As to your original question, HTC itself will indeed take a patent case to trial by jury --- see http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...-provides-litigation-190703288.html, in which HTC and the other defendants prevailed against Wi-Lan in the EDoT back in July. Shortly thereafter, an article was written in which HTC indicated that they hated patent trolls and would rather risk losing in litigation than to pay any kind of settlement. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have been completely accurate since, just today, HTC settled with Wi-Lan in a deal that included several other cases and any remaining right of appeal that Wi-Lan may have had in the EDoT matter that had gone to trial; http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...-reach-agreement-end-153907273.html. But still, HTC wasn't afraid to take the EDoT case to trial.
My sincere hope is that, in HTC's view, TPL is much more of a patent troll than Wi-Lan, and that HTC refuses to offer any kind of substantial settlement. Of course, it would be great if HTC would offer $50 million, but again, with the history of "cratering" by TPL, what real incentive is there for the latter? If HTC was truly fearful of losing the case on a bigtime basis, settlement would have occurred before now, and the denial of a summary judgment, while I'm obviously glad it occurred, certainly isn't unusual.
As I've said on many occasions, it is time to win or lose, to perform or die --- either get a judgment of infringment, or lose the case and start digging PTSC's grave. I would be happy either way, because small settlements won't help us, and we don't have time to institute and maintain multiple other new lawsuits, at least without the clout of a prior judgment of infringement in our hands.
Mr. Otteson, even though the final decision isn't yours to make, I hope you get the opportunity to take this case to trial. If you do, just do your dead level best and let the jury make the decision --- IMO, it is high time.
Best wishes to all.
Nun versuchen die Anwälte on HTC den nächsten Trick um die ITC Markman Formulierung durch die Hintertüre in das Verfahren einzubringen........
Aber ohne Otteson der cool daruf kontert:
http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/t3/...20byAlliacense%209-19-13.pdf
Nun heute 09.30 und 10.00 werden von Richter Grewel die ganzen "HTC Spielchen" entschieden, bin davon überzeugt er wird den versuchten Manipulationen einen Riegel vorschieben. Auch Texas Instruments wird nun vermutlich beim HTC Trial erscheinen müssen und zur Entwicklung Ihre Chips Aussagen müssen.
Aus meiner Sicht richtig gut wenn am Montag der Trial beginnt, und KEIN Settlement mit HTC eingegangen werden wird. Wir werden sehen.....!!
sollte es doch anders kommen, wie ich denke - werde ich die Lichter aus machen und die Türe zum letzten mal hinter mir schließen!
Genießen wir noch einmal ein schönes ruhiges Wochenende!
CUPERTINO, California – 19 September 2013 – Alliacense announced today that Acer Inc. has purchased an MMP™ Portfolio license. The agreement resolves the ITC Investigation and District Court lawsuit against Acer, an industry-leading computing products and solutions company. Acer joins…
Read more ›
Amazon.com Inc. Purchases MMP Portfolio™ License
CUPERTINO, California – 18 September 2013 – Alliacense announced today that Amazon.com Inc. has purchased an MMP™ Portfolio license. The agreement resolves the ITC Investigation and District Court lawsuit recently filed against Amazon.com, an industry-leading online retailer. Amazon.com joins a…
Read more ›
Kyocera Corporation Purchases MMP Portfolio™ License
CUPERTINO, California – 28 August 2013 – Alliacense announced today that Kyocera Corporation has purchased an MMP™ Portfolio license. The agreement resolves the ITC Investigation and District Court lawsuit recently filed against Kyocera, an industry-leading mobile computing and machine-to-machine (M2M)…
....unseren Gunsten!!!
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1840222#message
thanks for the replies...
to exclude any external clock used to generate a signal
the clock signal is not generated from an external crystal
that's what I was hoping was the meat
hier alle drei Pacers.....
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1840213#message
So, Herr Otteson, nun ist alles angerichtet!!!!
Vielleicht schon in ein paar Tagen positive Klarheit!!!
ich möchte an dieser Stelle einmal Danke sagen, für die jahrelangen Bemühungen
von ccraider, fs, Ente und den anderen, die uns immer wieder, gegen die "negativen
Strömungen", mit Infos und "Klarstellungen" versorgt haben. Ich denke ich spreche
hier für einige wenn ich sage, dass ich nicht immer alles verstehe was da wer warum
an Eingaben und Auslassungen, egal ob in Boards oder an Gericht, von sich gibt.
Ich hoffe für uns alle, dass diese jahrelange "Tortur" nun endlich bald ein Ende findet
und dies auch mal als "kleine" Belohnung/Wiedergutmachung im Kurs zu sehen ist ;-)).
Ich wünsche Euch allen ein schönes Wochenende und ein paar angenehme, kommende
Patriot Wochen, wump
Gruß und auf ein Neues
Pipe
Ausser läppischen 2% Steigerung zum Ende hin bei geringen Umsätzen konnte ich nichts Positives erkennen gestern ...
Denn ich lese hier gerade : Performance seit Threadbeginn (Sommer 2006):
Sage und schreibe MINUS 88% !!!
(also fast Totalverlust, wenn ich das richtig sehe, Wahnsinn)
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1840244#message
In this patent infringement action, the patent owner sought a reasonable royalty in the form of a lump sum payment. HTC filed a Daubert motion to exclude the expert's opinion on the ground that the lump sum royalty impermissibly included the entire market value.
The district court began its analysis with a commentary on Daubert motions in patent cases. "Another patent case on the eve of trial, another Daubert motion to strike a patent damages expert's testimony. The undersigned only recently observed that such motions have become a routine affair in patent litigation. And yet, as routine as the motion has become, skilled experts continue to fashion new theories prompting additional lines of attacks. In short, no two motions are quite the same."
The district court then explained that the patent owner's lump sum royalty calculation was based upon a section of a recent Federal Circuit decision. "In the latest installment of this serial, the patentee and its allies seize upon a particularly interesting section of the Federal Circuit's analysis in LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta, Inc. In that section, the Circuit suggests that in certain cases, the record might support a relatively straightforward way to avoid the restrictions of the entire market value rule in a Section 284 reasonable royalty analysis: a lump-sum payment. Consistent with this suggestion, Defendants Technology Properties Limited, Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense, Limiteds' (collectively "TPL") expert Dr. Stephen Prowse looks to the 100 or so licenses to the patents-in-suit struck by TPL. Dr. Prowse eschews any reliance on the so-called "analytical method."4 Instead, he offers the opinion that in the hypothetical negotiation that would have predated the infringement giving rise to this litigation, Plaintiffs HTC Corporation and HTC America (collectively "HTC"), too, would have agreed to an approximately $10M lump-sum payment."
HTC objected to this approach arguing that in calculating the value the lump sum, Dr. Prowse returned "to the entire revenue of its accused mobile phones for his estimate even as he acknowledges there is no evidence that any of claimed inventions is the basis of demand for the phones. And thus, says HTC, Dr. Prowse's professed reliance on a lump-sum structure is nothing more than a ruse to avoid the entire market value rule ("EMVR") and the Federal Circuit's increasingly demanding standards surrounding it. HTC separately challenges Dr. Prowse's efforts to "tier" the existing TPL licenses to weigh what HTC would have paid here in light of the assumption in any hypothetical negotiation that the patents-in-suit are valid and infringed."
The district court ultimately disagreed that this methodology was so flawed that it has to be excluded. "Here's why. Lump sums are one species of the broader genus of reasonable royalties, running royalties being another. Depending on the certainty of the market opportunity, the cash constraints of the licensee, the licensor's appetite for risk and superior insight into the utility of the patented invention, the parties' competitive posture, and undoubtedly other factors, a lump sum structure might better reflect what the hypothetical negotiation would produce. Especially where, as here and in LaserDynamics, the patentee itself consistently and regularly negotiated lump sum payments with its licensees, there is even more reason to believe that the parties would have agreed to a lump sum to allow the licensee to infringe."
The district court then analyzed how the parties would have figured out the amount of the lump sum royalty and concluded that there was a sufficient basis for the expert to testify before the jury. "According to Dr. Prowse, here TPL and its licensees regularly estimated the anticipated revenue of the entire licensed product in arriving at a bottom line number. Given this record, the court cannot say Dr. Prowse's estimate is so unreliable as to violate the norms of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In Lucent, the Federal Circuit at least suggested that so long as an expert does not openly invite the jury to "speculate" about the future, she may opine on the magnitude of the lump sum payment by "estimating" what the total royalty would be based on a running royalty on the accused product as a whole. The Circuit did not suggest, and has not since suggested, that such as estimate is appropriate only where the demand requirement of the EMVR is satisfied. Two considerations are critical. The first is that there is evidence in the record in this case that this is what TPL and its licensees did over and over again.9 The second is not to use lump sum agreements that bear little resemblance to the hypothetical license in terms of patents licensed and field of use. . . . Here, there is no dispute that while the other agreement did license broader rights, those rights included the very same patents asserted against HTC. The licensor was none other the TPL, the same licensor here. While the other agreements did involve broader geographic rights than just those of the United States, so long as this broader scope is accounted for, the agreements may still be properly considered. Perhaps this explains why HTC's own damages expert agreed that the agreements were comparable."
Finally, the district court concluded that "[w]hether any of this will persuade the jury remains unclear. That is not the issue before the court. What is clear is that the jury should get the opportunity to hear this evidence, look Dr. Prowse in the eye, and give his testimony whatever weight it deems appropriate."
HTC Corporation, et al., v. Technology Properties Limited, Case No. 5:08-cv-00882-PSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2013).
mit der Order vom 20.09. -PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS- von Grewal wissen wir nun ziemlich genau und einfach formuliert, was ab Montag zu entscheiden ist. Es geht um das 17 mal überprüfte 336! Nicht mehr und nicht weniger!
"Your job will be to decide whether claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the
"336 patent have been infringed and whether those claims are invalid. If you decide that any claim of the "336 patent has been infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to decide any money damages to be awarded to TPL to compensate it for the infringement. You will also need to make a finding as to whether the infringement was willful. If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any damage award you give. I will take willfulness into account later."
Nach dieser Entscheidung wird sich auch Samsung auf das MMP einstellen, da bin ich mir sicher!
Ich frage mich nur noch was hat die Einigung mit Acer für einen Mehreffekt für uns gehabt? Nur um zu zeigen das sich HTC ziemlich dümmlich verhält und weiterhin auf dem Standpunkt steht das die Patente ungültig sind? Um einen Vorführeffekt für die Jury zu erzielen??? Ich Hoffe stark das acer, die sich nun auch Jahre gegen uns gestemmt haben, ordentlich bluten mussten.
Wenn diese Tage dann rum sind dürfte das mmp fertig sein zur Vermarktung!! Dann könnte Lecky loslegen und noch einmal 300 mill mit 100 Lizenzen (und mehr) einsammeln!
microby
Optionen
| Boardmail an "microby" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
336.gif (verkleinert auf 85%)
What really caught my eye, however, as duck has already noted, is that, according to Exhibit B, which is an email exchange between the attorneys for both sides, our opponents will not be pursuing invalidity of the patents. As you may recall, I've said on an number of occasions over the years that validity is not really the primary issue in this case, since the PTO has spoken so many times on that. Of course, PTO determinations aren't an absolute bar against asserting the invalidity defense at trial if a litigant wishes to do so, and as I've also said, some lawyers simply never give up on such things.
So, it's nice to see that our opposition is taking this issue off the table. This negates the possibility, remote though it may have been, that the jury might misunderstand something and use it to invalidate the patents. It also means that the jury will rule only as to infringement and, if such is found, on damages.
Let's not kid ourselves, though, because this also confirms that we are up against some very good lawyers on the other side. Smart lawyers know not to argue what they can't win, since doing so often alienates the jury and has a "diminishing returns" effect. By not pursuing invalidity, our opponents can now "wear the white hat" in front of the jury, in effect sending the message that, "We agree with TPL that the patents are valid, so we didn't want to waste your time time that. We're credible people. So, this means that you really need to listen to us on infringement, because we're credible on that, too". Always beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
A very interesing turn of events. As always, we shall see.
This morning at 9:00 EST, the Court will take up the motions that have been filed concerning jury instructions. Jury selection will begin thereafter. I don't know specifically about the NDCA, but in most federal courts, the lawyers are given a relatively small amount of time to question the jurors (known as "voir dire") about their qualifications. Now that I think of it, Judge Grewal may have issued an Order concerning this, but in any event, I would be surprised if each side is given more than 30 minutes. Assuming this is accurate, and further assuming that the motion hearing and other such matters don't get unduly complicated, I would expect that a jury would be seated well before noon. There wil likely be either 6 or 9 jurors, depending on how Judge Grewal normally does things. Once the jury is seated, the case will begin, with the plaintiffs (our opponents) presenting their case first.
Do we have to wait in case of the trial till 4th October or even later to see a ruling rsp. is there definitely a ruling/result a the end of 4th October?
No. The October 4 conclusion date was put in place when Acer was still a party in order to allow for its additional evidence and/or the fact that the cases might be presented separately. With Acer gone, the trial still starts today, and will be completed whenever the parties have concluded their evidence. At that time, the case will go to the jury for a verdict. Especially due to the "streamlining" we have seen over this past weekend, I will be very surprised of the case lasts more than a few days. Indeed, and I'm trying to again remember an Order that Judge Grewal may have issued on this, but I seem to recall that he placed an hourly limit on each side for the presetation of their respective cases --- it may have been 13 hours per side, but we would need to find that Order, if it in fact exists, to be sure.
Could it happen that they settle even at 4th October?
The case can settle at any time, even after the jurors leave the room for their final deliberations, and for that matter, even after their verdict. As above, I expect the trial to last only a few days, so the October 4 date is really no longer relevant in terms of the trial setting. However, as I've also said, settlement can occur at any time until the matter is fully and finally concluded --- it could occur even during an appeal of the case if such an appeal is taken.
Who decides in case of an infringement the penalty sum and is that sum fixed at the end of the trial?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the term "penalty sum". If you are referring to damages for infringement, then the jury makes that decision, and will do so as part of its overall deliberations in reaching a verdict. There is also a request for treble damages based on "willful infringement", and I've read different ways that this is handled --- I've read cases in which that issues was decided by the jury, and also others in which it was decided later by the judge. Sorry, but not being a patent lawyer, I don't know what written rules control that, or whether they can be varied from.
The bottom line is that, unless settlement occurs during the trial, we will have a verdict before the end of this week as to infringement, and if infringement is found to have occured, as to how much money the jury will have awarded. There is also something called a "motion for judgment as a matter of law", but that is outside the scope of your questions.
I hope the above is helpful to you. Best wishes
Not authorized to view. 2 873231 Exhibit 1 103952 3 09/23/2013 02:42 PM
Not authorized to view. 3 873232 Exhibit 2 243286 3 09/23/2013 02:42 PM
Not authorized to view. 4 873233 Exhibit 3 191501 24 09/23/2013 02:43 PM
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1840796#message
schon vor Handelsbeginn 700k gehandelt. Ob da wat passiert ist? Ich wünsch uns
allen viel Glück!!
Grüße wump
09:28:49§ 0,078 110.000 720.000
08:18:06§ 0,078 55.000 610.000
08:17:07§ 0,077 55.000 555.000
08:16:50§ 0,08 500.000 500.000<---------------------geil
08:04:28§ 0,073 0