2 Milliarden $: Patriot Scientific gegen intel
Seite 118 von 136 Neuester Beitrag: 25.04.21 03:01 | ||||
| Eröffnet am: | 18.03.04 14:29 | von: aida73 | Anzahl Beiträge: | 4.387 |
| Neuester Beitrag: | 25.04.21 03:01 | von: Silkelwtpa | Leser gesamt: | 337.933 |
| Forum: | Hot-Stocks | Leser heute: | 66 | |
| Bewertet mit: |  | |||
| Seite: < 1 | ... | 116 | 117 | | 119 | 120 | ... 136 > | ||||
BALD booooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :)
http://jobsearch.monster.com/...ster%2Ecom%2Falia&aj=TPL+Group%2C+Inc
Patent Attorney
Senior Patent Attorney will create and secure protection for intellectual property (e.g., patents) for inventions and discoveries made by, acquired by or licensed to TPL Group of businesses.
alles dreht sich um PTSC
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/07/22/2802842.htm
SCHÖN ::::::::::::::: wer nicht investiert ist ,ist selber schuld :)
das ARM bis zum 15.08 lizensiert.
der nächste... :)
In October 2005, Technology Properties Limited, Inc. ("TPL") filed suit, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), against certain companies in the Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC and Toshiba groups of companies alleging infringement of TPL's US Patents Nos. 5,809,336; 5,784,584 and 6,598,148 (the "Litigation"). All of the defendants are licensees of various ARM technologies. It was revealed as part of the preliminary infringement contentions in the Litigation, filed in July 2006, that certain ARM technology is alleged to infringe a single claim in US Patent No. 5,784,584 (the "'584 Patent"). In September 2006 ARM filed a motion to intervene in the Litigation and that motion has been granted. ARM is now a defendant party in the Litigation. The claim construction (or "Markman") hearing is scheduled for May 2007 and the trial date is scheduled for November 2007. Based on legal advice and written opinions received from external counsel, ARM is confident that the accused ARM technology does not infringe any of the claims of the '584 Patent or that the patent is invalid. ARM has voluntarily joined as a party to the Litigation to proactively defend its technology against ill conceived and false infringement allegations and fully expects to prove the case for non-infringement or invalidity in the course of the Litigation.
--------------------------------------------------
dies soweit so gut.................aber lest euch mal den link unten durch........ :)
http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news15613.html
TPL has posted on its Web site a collection of informative articles and documents on this matter which we encourage you to read. While Patriot Scientific does not wish to influence anyone's opinion in this matter, the company feels a responsibility to inform its shareholders of pending legislation that might affect their interest in the company. Among the documents at TPL's Web site is a draft letter that you may send to your senator or congressman if you disagree with the proposed legislation. All of this material is available at
http://www.ptsc.com/news/press_releases/20070727.asp
nun die letzte News zeigt wieder einmal die Seriösitat der Führung.Zudem wird ohne Aufforderung auch auf die "neuen Gesetzte"hingewiesen. Wobei klar und deutlich auf einer seits seitens PTSC erklärt wird das diese Patentgesetzt änderung nicht PTSC betrifft.Hierzu wird von den Aktionären gebeten sich nicht dadurch beeinflussen zu lassen.
While Patriot Scientific does not wish to influence anyone's opinion in this matter, the company feels a responsibility to inform its shareholders of pending legislation that might affect their interest in the company ein Interessanter auszug aus dem Board AGORA
Posted by: SGE1 on July 28, 2007 08:09PM
In response to: Does anyone know if this will apply us as well ? Yes, or, no ... by provide
Yes, we know with reasonable certainty that the contemplated changes to the patent system will NOT affect us. As currently written, the changes will not take effect for a long time (a year?) and will only impact patents awarded AFTER that date.
Hope this helps.LINK hierzu http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/567759
dies,finde ich klasse,wenn man in betracht bezieht was GPC Biotech mit seinen anlegern so alles Vernstaltet hat,
kann man fast sagen das PTSC reif für den Amex ist.....Am anfang war auch ich skeptisch gegenüber der ernennung des neuen CEO,"turley" aber muss man zugeben,das der Kerl alles richtig macht,zudem er sich nicht nur auf die Patenteinnahmen verlässt,sondern die Geschäftsfelder erweitert.
Was uns natürich fehlt ist dieser erwartete Kursausbruch.........booommmmmmmmmmm
wobei ich mir sicher bin,das der Kurs hierzu dermassen ausbrechen wird,das einige am nächsten tag die welt nicht mehr verstehen werden(Shorties).
Die erntezeit steht vor der Tür.,ob Toshi oder ARM für den höhenflug sorgen wird,ist schnuppe ,fakt ist das die "kake am Dampfen ist" :) was hinter den türen so ales passsiert können wir nur vermuten........
Jedoch ,wie oben beschildert,wette ich darauf das der nächste ARM sein wird,wobei ich mir zu 100% sicher bin das Turley
"einige" Kandidaten in seiner Schublade aufbewahrt hat(Wie es auch bisher immer war.
zurück zu ARM
Technology Properties Limited, Inc. On October 24, 2005 Technology Properties
Limited, Inc. ("TPL") filed suit against Fujitsu Limited et al. (including ARM's
licensees Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC and Toshiba) (Technology Properties Limited,
Inc., v. Fujitsu Limited et al, No.2:05-cv-00494) in the Eastern District of
Texas alleging willful infringement of TPL's US patents 6,598,148, 5,809,336 and
5,784,584. It was reported on March 2, 2006, that Fujitsu had entered into a
settlement agreement with TPL but the proceedings continue with respect to the
other defendants. Following a detailed analysis of the relevant patent claims
ARM does not believe that any of the claims are infringed by any ARM technology
dann auf einmal fällt denen ein......
ARM does not expect any significant
liability to arise in respect of these proceedings
:)
Der wichtigste Monat für PTSC jedoch ist der AUGUST.
Einigen sich die J2,5 nicht bis zum trial..........15.08.2007(das verlorene MH vor den augen) ja dann wird es enorm teuer für die Beklagten,dies inbetracht zzgl Gerichts und Anwaltkosten,zzgl kann das Gericht auf die 3 fache Summe einen Urteil setzen.
Mediationsende:http://ptsc.com/news/press_releases/20070330.asp
Nun wird Judge ward,jedoch immer wieder jede nacht überlegen,und sich diese frage stellen,
Warum haben
Gezahlt,
a)zu viel gewinn
b)schlechte Rechtabteilung
c)mieserable Rechtsanwälte
d)haben sehr gut recherchiert,und haben eingesehen das sie keine chance haben...
Ich bleibe bei der meinung,und sage
a)in texas geht es rund...
b)ARM ist Welcome to the next
CARLSBAD, Calif., March 30, 2007
The following is an unofficial summary of important dates in the Patent Infringement Litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas, which is provided by counsel for Patriot Scientific:
May 3, 2007: Claim Construction Hearing - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas. This is an important event from the standpoint of interpreting and assessing the scope of the patent claims. The Defendants' invalidity contentions and the factual questions of what products actually infringe would still remain to be litigated by motions or at trial.
The Claim Construction Hearing ruling may not issue for approximately 30 days or more after the hearing. Most deadlines after that are measured from the Court's Patent Claim Construction ruling.
15 Days after Claim Construction Ruling: Party with the Burden of Proof to Designate Expert Witnesses; Expert Witness Report Due.
15 Days After Claim Construction Ruling: Deadline to Comply with P.R. 3-8 (willful infringement; reliance on counsel defense disclosure)
30 Days After Claim Construction Ruling: Designate Rebuttal Expert Witnesses; Expert Witness Report Due
30 Days After Claim Construction Ruling: Final Infringement Contentions If Warranted Under P.R. 3-6(a) (amending infringement contentions if warranted following claims construction ruling)
50 Days After Claim Construction Ruling: Designate Final Invalidity Contentions If Warranted Under P.R. 3-6(b)
60 Days After Claim Construction Ruling: Mediation to be Completed
September 4, 2007: Discovery Deadline
September 4, 2007: Deadline for Plaintiff to Identify Trial Witnesses
September 14, 2007: Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions
September 18, 2007: Deadline for Defendant to Identify Trial Witnesses
September 28, 2007: Deadline for Response to Dispositive Motions
October 5, 2007: Deadline for Pretrial Disclosures
14 Days After Pretrial Disclosures: Deadline for Objections to Use of a Deposition Under Rule 32(a)
October 9, 2007: Deadline for Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions and Form of the Verdict
October 19, 2007: Pretrial Objections Due
October 19, 2007 (or three days before final Pre-Trial Conference): Deadline for Motions in Limine
October 23, 2007: Pretrial Conference - 1:30 p.m. in Marshall, Texas
November 5, 2007: Jury Selection - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas. While trial dates are normally not firm, Patriot's counsel would expect those claims that proceed to trial to do so by the end of the year.
E-mail: press@patriotscientific.com
| Senior Principal Engineer - Firmware | TPL Group, Inc | Jul 27 |
| US-CA-Silicon Valley/San Jose | Cupertino | |
 Save job  More jobs like this | ||
| <!-- posid:45080335 --><!-- 0.00000|99999.9|4508 --> | ||
<!-- Job Description White -->
| Patent Attorney | TPL Group, Inc | Jul 20 |
| US-CA-Silicon Valley/San Jose | Cupertino | |
anzunehmen........................
JETZT Aktuell
.........Over 220 of an estimated "485 "companies placed on written notice for likely infringement on one or more patents in the portfolio have engaged in communications with the company's licensing team. After allocation for expenses, Patriot saw over $48 million in one-time licensing fees from the portfolio in calendar year 2006..........................
evtl Toshiba the next one?
The next Welcome ARM 
http://search.arm.com/...&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=ARM_Search
Vizemeister ist viel schöner,...die Salatschüssel ist doch hässlich!
Optionen
| Boardmail an "joker67" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Dann ist der Bert eingestiegen bei PTSC und pushed was das Zeug hält...
UNGLAUBLICH SERIÖS UND FÜR ALLE NEUEN User auch glaubhaft.
Wirklich arm :ARM :)
noch vorca.4 Wochen wurde jede Stunde gepostet::Übertreibst du nicht!?
Kursziel in 4 Wochen 100 %ig bei 0,02 €.:Das war auch der Aktuelle stand
Dann ist der Bert eingestiegen bei PTSC und pushed was das Zeug hält.:Bert nicht ,aber ob ich wirkich eingestiegen bin?
mit 100k?,fraglich fraglich
,will ja auch schliesslich geld verdienen...............
.. UNGLAUBLICH SERIÖS: Alles mit Quellenangabe fals du es nicht bemerkt haben solltest
UND FÜR ALLE NEUEN User auch glaubhaft:Keine Kauf-Verkaufsempfehlung,jeder handelt auf seine eigene verantwortung
kein gruß?
hallo Abenteuerer.....nun möchte ich mich mit dir nicht streiten,und überlasse es jedem,seine eigene meinung hier reinzustellen,
Ob du oder deine Konsorten sich für was besseres halten,gar der meinung sind das sie die Börse erschaffen haben,ist doch reiner Selbstbetrug. Nehmen wir hierzu ein Sprichwort aus der "börsenszene" Der Kurs hat immer Recht.......
Fakt ist ,das einige nicht in der lage sind eine Ordnungsgemäße disku anzufangen,gar sie auch ohne Beleidigunen zu beenden.
Es nützt doch keinem was wenn wir hier wieder eine Disku anfangen dem motto"wer hat den...."
Also in dem Sinne ,ein Angebot an @......................... Lasst uns gemeinsam und in frieden Leben .auf dem Planeten Erde?
Jetzt aber zu wichtigerem........................ Patriot Scientific
nun ich versuche mal auf meine art die letzten "2" news zu erläutern
News1.ptsc warnt davor das evt neue Gesetzesänderungen im Patengesetzesrecht
stattfinden können,so das "evtl" diese Gesetzesänderungen auch PTSC betreffen könnte.
News2.Turley gibt einen "unerwarteten" Sharholderletter raus,zudem einer seits eine Verzweiflung zu lesen ist.......
nun .........mischen wir diese beiden News mal zusammen............würde "meiner meinung" nach
folgende punkte dargestellt sein...
a)Es ist was großartiges bereits abgeschlossen,und Turley bittet um weiteren Geduld(Pohl teil2)
b)PTSC warnt bereits durch News seine Aktionäre das einiges doch nicht so gelaufen ist ,wie die Aktionäre es erwartet haben.(kennen wir eigentlich auch von Pohl)
c)ganz offensichtlich gibt PTSC bekannt,das sie nicht in der Lage sind den Kurs vorran zu treiben,da einige Punkte doch sehr steinig sind,
Die Kurze differenz der News zeigt mir doch schon,das da bereits einges gelaufen ist"positiv oder negativ"
Zudem gibt Turley bekannt,das dieser Monat eine Entscheidender monat sein wird.
Durch den gestrigen Kurs.zeigt PTSC mir weiterhin ,das es ein Großer Zock ist,trotz leider
erfolgreichem Markman Hearing,ein Zock....................
Empfehlung.........! Für Zocker ideal........für Herzkranke nicht zu Empfehlen
Hopp oder Top
Bei einem Gerichtlichem Beschluss für PTSC
Kurs 4-7$
Bei Negativem Ausgang in Texas
Kurs 0,08-0,02
sooooooooo Feuer frei 
obwohl ich sehr hoffe,das mein Angebot(siehe oben) angenommen wird"
gruß@all
wird heftig spekuliert das Airbus,evtl der nächste Lizenznehmer sein soll
das wäre Geillll
zudem Airbus ein schwergewicht unter den Patentverletzern wäre..............somit auch der 1 Flugzeughersteller.
dann möchten wir auch BOING willkommen heißen
und http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Flugzeughersteller
nicht umsonst.wurde folgende unten aufgeführte formulierung geändert
...........
auf wunsch mit links............
vorrab für einige ist es ja wichtig........
a)endschulige disch misch for die rechdschraipvehla
b)ich mache tut mir leid,auf die gramatisch....
Zeitpunkt: 08.08.07 11:50
Aktion: Löschung des Beitrages
Kommentar: Regelverstoß - Beleidigung
http://www.tplgroup.net/news/release.php?EDOpinion.txt
keine gute neuiggkeiten,im gegenteil :(
Dazu noch
http://staging.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/messages/568415
wobei ich die sichtweise vollkommen teile(leider)
Nun,zunächst sieht es wirklich so aus das wir hier eine "sehr"gute nachricht brauchen ,und zwar sehr schnell,das jetzt sogar Mr.Leckrone sich zu wort meldet und sich über die Neuen Gesetze sich beschwert ist ein Schlechtes zeichen,
Entweder es ist irgendetwas bereits passiert,Opsitiv oder negativ,aber so wie Turley und Leckrone momentan ihre aussagen werfen,sieht es so aus als möchten beide die Aktionäre warnen,bevor die große enntäuschung kommt,immerhin heißt es dann,wir haben alle gewarnt.Zumindest können die sich in em alter und bei der noch bevorstehenden Karriereführung,keine negativen Schlagzeilen gebrauchen,Dies hat Herr Pohl eigentlich ganz anders erledigt............Er hat sich gar nicht erst gemledet.
Das was evtl hiflreich wäre im bereich 0,03-0,04 cent bereich (kurserhöhung)wären ordentliche Zahlenverkündung,in den nächsten tagen,am besten schon heute............................
aber wäre da nicht.......PTSC die eigentlich dafür berühmt sind die zahlen sogar zu verschieben,würde ich sagen.....es ist noch hoffnung,das wir die 0,50 halten.....................:(
Nun in diesem sinne.........Zocki Zock nur für Harte Kerle........................
in em sinne,,bin ich wieder einmal raus...hier..............................beobachte euch aber sehr genau:)
Der zeitpunkt für einen wiedereinsitig bei PTSC ist immer wieder gegegeben............
Alles gute an allle die "noch" investiert sind
"Nun in diesem sinne.........Zocki Zock nur für Harte Kerle........................"
...oder ein Invest für die, die ein bischen weiter schauen!!!
"in em sinne,,bin ich wieder einmal raus...hier..............................beobachte euch aber sehr genau:)"
BigBrother oder was????
"Der zeitpunkt für einen wiedereinsitig bei PTSC ist immer wieder gegegeben............"
der war schon lange...bei 0,05 €-1,2€ ;-)))
Alles gute an allle die "noch" investiert sind
"was lange währt...."
P.S. die neue Rechtschreibreform find ich komich...;-)
will auch nicht hier den anschein bringen,das PTSC eine schlechte Investition ist.
Jedoch der Aktuelle stand ,so auch die "merkwürdigen"stellungnahmen seitens Turley und&
so auch der warnung an der neuen gesetztes änderungen,zeigt schon,das da einiges doch nicht so läuft wie PTSC sich vorgestellt hat...................
In dem sinne,nochmals an Juppes worte denken....
Nur meine meinung
so auch der Schlusskurs
Wenn man jedoch bedenkt das eigentlich news und Zahlen bevorstehen sollen...:(
Aktie ist nichts für Herzkranke.Hier sollten auch nur Leute einsteigen,die das ged eh nicht mehr brauchen.
Und niht mit Haus und Hoff...Totalverust evtl einplanen
einfach mal Casino spielen
--------------------------------------------------
New Pacer--DEFENDANT ARM’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 2-05CV-494 (TJW)
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL
CO; LTD; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF
NORTH AMERICA; JVC AMERICAS CORP.;
NEC CORPORATION; NEC ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC.; NEC AMERICA, INC.; NEC
DISPLAY SOLUTIONS OF AMERICA, INC.;
NEC SOLUTIONS AMERICA, INC.; NEC
UNIFIED SOLUTIONS, INC.; TOSHIBA
CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA,
INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
COMPONENTS, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA
INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.; and
TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, LLC,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT ARM’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE
Defendants ARM, Inc. and ARM, Ltd. (collectively, “ARM”) oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to continue the trial date (the “Continuance Motion”) because Plaintiffs’ alleged problems are entirely self-created. Filing lawsuits in this district brings both benefits and responsibilities. One benefit is that the Court efficiently administers its dockets. One responsibility is that Plaintiffs
Text zur Anzeige gekürzt. Gesamtes Posting anzeigen...
are expected to assist the Court’s efficient administration by effectively prosecuting their cases.Plaintiffs’ Continuance Motion seeks to inappropriately disrupt the Court’s schedule. The Court should not reward Plaintiffs’ delays in prosecuting its case with a continuance. Plaintiffs have only themselves to blame for any discovery delays. Plaintiffs filed this case on October 24, 2005. By July 1, 2007 (only 2 months from the close of discovery), Plaintiffs had not taken a single deposition. Plaintiffs’ delay in filing its amended infringement
contentions (“PICs”) caused the present request for continuance. Plaintiffs’ sent those amended contentions to defendants on December 23, 2006, but did not file their motion to amend until March 26, 2007 – a delay of over 3 months. Had Plaintiffs been reasonably diligent in filingtheir PICs motion, the present Continuance Motion would be unnecessary. Moreover, the history of this case indicates that Plaintiffs are using the Continuance Motion to avoid judgment on their invalid and non-infringed claims. Plaintiffs attempt to create the false illusion that Plaintiffs’ long-time refusal to pursue discovery can be blamed on any of the defendants. When ARM called Plaintiffs’ bluff on its unreasonable discovery demands and complied with discovery, Plaintiffs declined both to accept ARM’s documents and to depose ARM’s witnesses. ARM agrees with co-defendant Toshiba: if the trial delay is no more than two months, ARM would drop its opposition to the present motion. Further delay causes ARM significant harm because Plaintiffs continue to falsely accuse ARM’s licensees of infringement. ARM intervened to protect its licensees. Plaintiffs should not be permitted to use unreasonable discovery demands against other defendants to delay trial and continue their campaign of harassment against ARM’s licensees.
I. THE DISCOVERY EXCHANGES BETWEEN ARM AND PLAINTIFFS
CONFIRM THAT PLAINTIFFS REFUSE TO PURSUE DISCOVERY WHEN
OFFERED AND HAVE MANUFACTURED ALLEGED DISCOVERY DISPUTES
MERELY AS AN EXCUSE.
Plaintiffs’ protestations of discovery delays caused by defendants are belied by the interactions between ARM and Plaintiffs. In short, Plaintiffs made unreasonable discovery demands against ARM, but ARM complied with those demands. After unreasonably forcing ARM to collect and process millions and millions of documents, Plaintiffs declined to receive those documents. After serving an enormously broad 30(b)(6) notice to ARM, Plaintiffs would not even answer ARM’s letters attempting to schedule the depositions. Simply put, Plaintiffs’ discovery demands are a ruse to create the illusion of dispute and thus, justification for delay. ARM’s Responses To Plaintiffs’ Discovery. The exchanges between ARM and Plaintiffs regarding discovery demonstrate two things: Plaintiffs demand unnecessary discovery and Plaintiffs are not really interested in using any of the discovery. Sep. 29, 2006: ARM identifies to TPL the documents it understands TPL reasonably needs for discovery and requests that TPL contact ARM if additional documents are needed. TPL never responds to this letter. (Exh. A) Oct. 27, 2006: TPL sends a letter enumerating unreasonably broad categories of documents which would result in virtually every single document at ARM being produced. (Exh B.) Nov. 22, 2006: ARM informs TPL of the enormous scope of TPL’s demands and
suggests limiting ARM’s production to ARM Accused Products as such: ARM suggests that TPL define the “ARM Accused Products” as the ARM7, ARM9, ARM10, and ARM11 microprocessor core families. (Exh. C) Dec. 7, 2006: TPL rejects ARM’s limited definition and demands a much more expansive definition: You have suggested that the ARM Accused Products be defined as the "ARM7, ARM9, ARM10, and ARM11 microprocessor families." We think this definition is too narrow. The Accused Products should also include all ARM product families that are licensed to or otherwise made available to the NEC, Toshiba and MEI Defendants, or any of them, including but not limited to, the ARM7, ARM9, ARM9E, ARM10E, ARM11, Cortex, and SecurCore microprocessor families. (Exh. D) Dec. 15, 2006: ARM acquiesces in TPL’s demand to expand the definition of ARM Accused Products but warns of the enormously expensive consequences to ARM: Regarding TPL’s expansion of its request for technical documentation, ARM will endeavor to collect such documents. ARM is still investigating the scope of this expansion but it is believed to be on the order of many gigabytes of data. (Exh.E)ARM subsequently incurred the enormous expense of collecting and offering to Plaintiffs an estimated 10 million pages – a document production that Plaintiffs then declined to accept (Exh. F). On May 31, 2007, Plaintiffs served a 30(b)(6) notice to ARM. On June 14, ARM responded by identifying a witness and indicating that the deposition would need to occur in the United Kingdom since the witness’s wife was 8+ months pregnant and the witness could not travel. On June 20, ARM again wrote Plaintiffs seeking to confirm the 30(b)(6) deposition dates. On June 27, ARM again wrote Plaintiffs seeking to confirm the 30(b)(6) deposition dates letters at Exh. G). Plaintiffs did not respond to any of ARM’s letters offering a 30(b)(6) witness. The ARM / Plaintiffs Exchanges Demonstrate That Plaintiffs Seek Only To Manufacture Discovery Disputes. Plaintiffs’ discovery demands appear not to have been designed to legitimately uncover evidence that they can use at trial. Rather, as demonstrated by the interaction with ARM, Plaintiffs are using discovery to burden the defendants with enormous costs while creating an excuse to delay the trial. ARM found itself capable of responding to Plaintiffs’ unreasonable demands. Plaintiffs’ subsequent inaction demonstrates that Plaintiffs have no need – or even desire – to evaluate and use the enormous scope of discovery being demanded. Rather, Plaintiffs seek only to create discovery difficulties for the tactical advantage of being able to request delays as in the Continuance Motion.
II. ARM’S OBJECTIONS ARE NOT MOOT BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS SEEK TO
WITHHOLD LEGAL CLAIMS TO ASSERT IN A FUTURE LAWSUIT.
Plaintiffs’ brief wrongly implies that ARM’s objections are moot because of an alleged stipulation which would eliminate the ‘584 patent. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs’ proposed stipulation retains the ability to sue ARM again in the future. ARM should be entitled to a stipulation of non-infringement for all products which were, or could have been, accused of infringement. Plaintiffs’ proposed stipulation only addresses products that were specifically accused and reserves the ability to bring a future lawsuit against other products. ARM’s position is simple: either Plaintiffs bring their claims now or they should be foreclosed in the future. One specific dispute is over the whether ARM’s “Cortex” and “SecurCore” processors are included in the stipulation. Plaintiffs specifically forced ARM to collect and process documents related to these cores in an exchange between the parties: Nov. 22, 2006: Letter from ARM to TPL: ARM suggests that TPL define the “ARM Accused Products” as the ARM7, ARM9, ARM10, and ARM11 microprocessor core families. (Exh. C) Dec. 7, 2006: TPL demands a much more expansive definition: You have suggested that the ARM Accused Products be defined as the "ARM7, ARM9, ARM10, and ARM11 microprocessor families." We think this definition is too narrow. The Accused Products should also include all ARM product families that are licensed to or otherwise made available to the NEC, Toshiba and MEI Defendants, or any of them, including but not limited to, the ARM7, ARM9, ARM9E, ARM10E, ARM11, Cortex, and SecurCore microprocessor families. (Exh. D) Simply put, Plaintiffs cannot legitimately force ARM to collect and process documents regarding certain products and then reserve the ability to bring a separate lawsuit on those products. ARM’s products do not infringe Plaintiffs’ invalid claims.1 ARM should not be forced to incur unnecessary expenses defending either this lawsuit or a future lawsuit. ARM should be entitled to include in the judgment those products for which Plaintiffs demanded discovery. ARM will not contract or stipulate to less than what it should be entitled – no rational company would do so. To do so would only invite the future expense of re-litigating those same products. Accordingly, ending this dispute here and now is the appropriate course of conduct. Plaintiffs’ unreasonable stipulation raises the question: Why are they attempting to withhold the ability to threaten ARM’s products? The answer is that Plaintiffs with to continue to make unfounded accusations of infringement against ARM’s customer licensees. Inclusion of ARM’s set of products for which Plaintiffs demanded discovery into the judgment should end Plaintiffs’ campaign of harassment against ARM’s customer licensees.2 Plaintiffs may not want to stop making such unwarranted accusations, but ARM should not be forced to stipulate to anything that does not end this campaign. If Plaintiffs accept the reasonable stipulation offered by defendants, then the ‘584 patent and ARM will be out of this case. Until that point, ARM vigorously opposes any effort by Plaintiffs to delay the trial by more than two months.
1 See Exh. H. The Patent and Trademark Office recently rejected the asserted ‘584 claim as anticipated by 11 separate references – using Plaintiffs’ own claim construction.
2 Any continued accusations against ARM products in the face of a judgment may raise issues such as patent misuse, antitrust violations and unfair trade torts.
III. THE COURT SHOULD NOT CONDONE PLAINTIFFS’ REFUSAL TO
PROSECUTE ITS CASE.
Plaintiffs have been the proximate cause of any delays due to discovery. Inexplicably, Plaintiffs delayed over 20 months to start taking depositions less than 2 months before discovery closed and less than 4 months before this case was scheduled for trial. Such delays are inexcusable for any Plaintiff that is properly prosecuting its case. Plaintiffs cannot blame defendants document production for such delays. By Fall of 2006, defendants had produced many of the technical documents believed to be needed by Plaintiffs to prove their case. Even if Plaintiffs’ subsequently extremely broad additional demands were good-faith requests for information, the existing production in Fall 2006 was adequate for Plaintiffs to take depositions – to be followed up with additional depositions if so needed. Plaintiffs’ current position seems to be that depositions cannot commence until after production of every available document. Such a position leads to unnecessary delays. Discovery is a process of refining one’s litigation position through the collection of information: it is not a process of merely collecting massive information that serves no reasonable purpose in the litigation. The Continuance Motion was proximately caused by Plaintiffs’ delays in filing their motion to amend their preliminary infringement contentions. This Court denied Plaintiffs’ first attempt to amend their PICs on November 7, 2006. On December 23, Plaintiffs served defendants with a proposed new motion to amend the PICs. Plaintiffs did not file their motion to amend their PICs until March 26, 2007. Thus, Plaintiffs waited 5+ months after the Court’s initial denial of amendment and over 3 months after first approaching defendants with a new amendment to the PICs. Even accounting for negotiation with defendants after Plaintiffs’ December 23 service of new PICs, Plaintiffs’ delay in filing their motion is inexcusable. A reasonable plaintiff (facing a very near trial date) would have quickly brought the dispute to the Court by the end of January. Had Plaintiffs acted reasonably, the additional 2 months they now (ostensibly) seek would have naturally resulted from the January (rather than March 26) filing.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have not efficiently prosecuted their case. Thus, they now ask the Court to let them off the hook. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs offer the Court no guarantee that they will use this additional time any more wisely than they have used the 21 months since the filing of this lawsuit. ARM would agree to a 2-month delay. Plaintiffs’ conduct in this litigation does not merit the apparently unbounded extension of the case that Plaintiffs now seek.
Respectfully submitted,
James H. Wallace, Jr.
DC Bar. No. 016113
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) this 1st day of August, 2007. Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail.
Michael C. Smith
AG-Filter: PATRIOT SCIEN.
Übersicht Kurse Chart
News Forum
Performance seit Posting
--------------------------------------------------
Boardmail schreiben
Regelverstoß melden