Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
Die Zeitschiene, im Vergleich der erledigten Patente, dezdet auf eine enorme Verzögerung hin. Die beiden zusammengefassten Anträge zum 584 hängen stark hinterher. Der Grund ist mir nicht bekannt. Ich vermute vehemmenten Widerstand und Verzögerungen im Äußersten der Antragsteller, da sie ahnen was droht.
Nur für den laufenden Prozess gegen die Drei wäre ein Abschluss des Amtes zum Patent sehr hilfreich.
Es wird Zeit!
Gruß
Optionen
| Boardmail an "microby" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC) today announced that Cymer, Inc. has purchased an
MMP(TM) Portfolio license. Cymer, Inc. is the market leader in light sources
used by chipmakers worldwide to pattern advanced semiconductor chips.
About Patriot Scientific Corporation
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC) is
the co-owner of the Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) Portfolio licensing
partnership, and is the parent of the wholly owned subsidiary, PDSG. For more
information on PTSC, visit www.ptsc.com.
About the MMP Portfolio(TM)
The MMP Portfolio includes seven US patents as well as their European and
Japanese counterparts, which cover techniques that enable higher performance and
lower cost designs essential to consumer and commercial digital systems ranging
from PCs, cell phones and portable music players to communications
infrastructure, medical equipment and automobiles.
Contact:Patriot Investor Relationsir@ptsc.com760-547-2700
SOURCE Patriot Scientific Corporation
www.prnewswire.com
Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
An Alle:
Betrifft: Shareholder-Schreiben an Patriot Scientific Corp.
Wir haben einen momentanen Stimmenanteil von 4.091.000
Das ist - bei den wenigen gemeldeten Personen - schon recht erfreulich.
Ich bitte von einigen noch um den Namen und Wohnort (keine komplette Adresse)
Am Brief/Mailende werden die Namen mit Wohnort stehen.
Die einzelnen Stückzahlen werden nicht aufgeführt, sondern nur die Gesamtzahl.
Ich würde mich freuen, wenn weitere Meldungen kommen würden.
Und stellt bitte eure Fragen ! ! !
Liebe Grüße und ein schönes Wochenende
running
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF MICHELLE G. BREIT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Judge: Hon. James Ware
HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF MICHELLE G. BREIT -2- CASE NO. 3:08-CV-00877-JW
AND RELATED CASES
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Michelle G. Breit of Otteson Law Group of Agility IP Law hereby enters her appearance as counsel of record on behalf of Defendants TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and ALLIACENSE LIMITED in the above-captioned case as follows:
Michelle G. Breit OTTESON LAW GROUP AGILITY IP LAW 14350 N. 87th Street, Suite 190 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Pursuant to General Order 45, copies of all briefs, motions, orders, correspondence, and other papers filed by or with the Court may be electronically served on Michelle G. Breit at the above-listed electronic mail address.
Date: November 17, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
OTTESON LAW GROUP
/s/ Michelle G. Breit
Michelle G. Breit
Attorney for Defendants TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
CONTINUING CASE TUTORIAL TO JANUARY 26, 2011 (Signed by Judge)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Acer, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,
Defendants.
HTC Corp.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,
Defendants.
Barco NV,
Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,
Defendants.
NO. C 08-00877 JW
NO. C 08-00882 JW
NO. C 08-05398 JW
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME;
CONTINUING CASE TUTORIAL TO JANUARY 26, 2011
2 (hereafter, “Scheduling Order,” Docket Item No. 297.)
3 (Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Relief from First Patent Scheduling
Order at 1-3, Docket Item No. 303.)
4 (See Joint Case Management Conference Statement at 6, hereafter, “Statement,” Docket Item No. 294.)2
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time.1 Defendants request that the Court extend the dates set in the Court’s First Patent Scheduling Order2 by seventy-five days, on the ground that two of Defendants have “just retained” new counsel for these related cases. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiffs respond that an extension is unwarranted, on the ground that Defendants that have just retained new counsel appeared at a Case Management Conference on October 3, 2011, at which they
neither objected to the dates set forth at the Conference nor notified the Court or the parties that they were planning to substitute counsel.3 The Civil Local Rules provide: “After receiving a motion to enlarge or shorten time and any opposition, the Judge may grant, deny, modify the requested time change or schedule the matter for additional briefing or a hearing.” See Civ. L.R. 6-3(d). Upon review, the Court does not find good cause to extend the dates set in its First Patent Scheduling Order. On September 1, 2011, this matter was reassigned from Judge Fogel to Chief Judge Ware. (See Docket Item No. 291.) At the time this matter was reassigned, a claim construction tutorial and hearing had already been scheduled for November 2011.4 Indeed, when this matter was reassigned to Judge Ware, it was on the understanding that the matter had to dealt with on an expedited schedule, given the fact that the parties had a claim construction tutorial and hearing scheduled for November 2011. Further, after reassignment, Defendants contended that the claim construction tutorial and hearing should be held “in the second week of January or at the Court’s earliest availability thereafter.” (Statement at 6.) On the basis of the parties’ contentions regarding the claim construction tutorial and hearing, the Court scheduled the Case Tutorial for January 20, 2012 and the Claim Construction Hearing for January 27, 2012. (Scheduling Order at 4.) Thus, given: (1) the age of these cases; (2) the fact that claim construction proceedings were previously scheduled for November 2011; and (3) the contentions of the parties in their Joint Case Management Conference Statement and at the October 3 Conference, the Court finds that an extension of the dates set in the First Patent Scheduling Order is unwarranted. New counsel assumes the case as it is, and should be prepared to proceed in accordance with the Court’s First Patent Scheduling Order. Further, upon review of its own docket and calendar, and in light of the parties’ contentions regarding their availability at the October 3 Conference, the Court CONTINUES the Case Tutorial from January 20, 2012 to January 26, 2012. No other aspect of the Court’s Scheduling Order is
altered by this Order.
Dated: November 22, 2011
(Signed by Judge)
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge
CARLSBAD, Calif., December 2, 2011--(PR Newswire)-Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC - News) announced today that its Annual Meeting of Stockholders will be held at 10:00 AM on Friday, February 10, 2012 at the Hilton Garden Inn Carlsbad Beach in Carlsbad, California. The Company's Board of Directors has fixed the close of business on December 16, 2011 as the record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the annual meeting.
Additional details regarding the annual meeting will be made available in the Company's 2011 Proxy Statement due to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by no later than December 21, 2011.
The Company also announced the posting of several Frequently-Asked-Questions and responses to the Press Room section of its corporate web site.
About Patriot Scientific Corporation
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC) is the co-owner of the Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) Portfolio licensing partnership, and is the parent of the wholly owned subsidiary, PDSG. For more information on PTSC, visit www.ptsc.com.
Contact:
Patriot Investor Relations
ir@ptsc.com
760-547-2700 ext. 102
http://50.28.91.52/~patriots/...mp;task=view&id=282&Itemid=29
Q: Regarding the settlement reached between Patriot and the TPL Group in October 2011, why were further details not released regarding the settlement terms?
A: In order for Patriot and TPL to reach a settlement, it was necessary to agree that certain aspects of the settlement for which disclosure was not otherwise required remain confidential. Confidentiality was not our preference, however settling on terms that we believed to be favorable to the interests of Patriot's shareholders was our priority and we believe that we achieved that goal despite our inability to share some of the other details. We hope that by settling we have removed one obstacle faced by the license program.
Q: There were many serious claims levied against TPL by Patriot. How can Patriot simply abandon these claims without moving forward with the litigation?
A: We considered several factors in deciding to settle with TPL, including the significant cost and duration of litigation, the remainder of the MMP Portfolio's patent lives and the disruption to the licensing program. Although no settlement is ever perfect, we believed that the achievements afforded by the settlement were in the best interests of the licensing program and therefore Patriot's shareholders.
Q: Some people have identified a certain licensee as the impetus for the lawsuit initiated by Patriot against TPL. How was that specific issue addressed?
A: All aspects of the settlement beyond that which was disclosed in the Company's October 7, 2011 filing with the SEC made on Form 8-K are confidential.
Q: Now that Patriot has settled with TPL, why aren't there more MMP license announcements?
A: While we believe that by settling we have removed a significant obstacle faced by the license program, we also believe the licensing program is influenced by several factors, some of which are more fully described in the Risk Factors section of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2011, and the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2011. We encourage the investing public to review these risk factors.
Q: On Chuck Moore's Colorforth web-site he made several statements that described Patriot's settling its lawsuit with TPL to be averse to his interests. Did Patriot act inappropriately with Mr. Moore?
A: Both Patriot's and Mr. Moore's lawsuits with TPL involve issues that in some manner pertain to the MMP Portfolio. However, Patriot's and Mr. Moore's legal actions and the underlying issues are separate and distinct. Patriot's settling with TPL did not pose a conflict of interest in our dealings with Mr. Moore, and Patriot's conduct with Mr. Moore has always been professional and above-board. For the benefit of the licensing program we would like to see TPL and Mr. Moore reach a settlement, however, Patriot's primary obligation was and is, to its shareholders.
Q: Why aren't all MMP Portfolio licenses announced?
A: Not all MMP licenses are announced. We believe that as a general rule the licensing program is enhanced by the publicity associated with the announcement of a new licensee. However, one reason why a license may not be announced is the licensee may require confidentiality as a condition to the license agreement. This may become more commonplace as companies are increasingly approached by agents representing intellectual property portfolios. Companies don't necessarily want to advertise that they may have been targets for patent infringement settlements.
Q: Why aren't the licensee fees and terms for MMP licenses made public?
A: TPL's rationale for not disclosing licensing terms is to avoid this information setting minimum or upper limits on future licensing deals, which would make it harder for TPL in future negotiations with prospective licensees. Potential licensees would have access to this information through Patriot's public filings. While we understand the desire of our shareholder's to have this detailed information, we have to agree with TPL that it is probably in the best interests of the licensing program not to disclose license details.
Q: What is the current status of the USPTO re-examinations of the MMP Portfolio patents?
A: There have been seventeen reexamination challenges made on the MMP Portfolio. Most recently challenges against US`749 and US`148 were successfully defended with Reexamination Certificates issued confirming all significant claims, while also adding new claims. We are currently awaiting and anticipate the issuance of a Reexamination Certificate for US'584, thus concluding all outstanding requests against the MMP Portfolio. Also notable was the USPTO's denial in August of a reexamination reconsideration petition asserted against US`336.
Q: Why has there been a substitution of counsel in the Northern California infringement litigation against Acer, HTC and Barco?
A: Unfortunately we cannot answer this question at this time other than to say it is in the furtherance of a legal strategy that we expect will benefit the infringement litigation and overall licensing program.
Q: What is the future direction of Patriot? Are additional M&A transactions planned? Is returning cash to the shareholders an option?
A: Patriot is not currently pursuing any acquisition opportunities. It has, and continues to, divest of interests in activities that have required continued uses of cash. While we believe Patriot currently has a relatively strong cash position, we continue to take measures to preserve resources so that we are as prepared as possible to support our interests in the MMP Portfolio and meet all challenges, both known and unforeseen. At this time a very important event in determining Patriot's future will be the outcome in the current Northern California infringement litigation. A significant step in that process will be the Markman hearing which is currently scheduled for January 2012. While Patriot has not ruled out returning cash to its shareholders, no action in this regard is expected to be undertaken until significant uncertainties surrounding the business, litigation, and the licensing program are resolved.
Q: What are the plans for PDSG? Why has it only had limited success thus far?
A: We have explored several go-to market strategies for PDSG. Over the past two years this has included an aggressive effort to identify partners that already had access and inroads to the market place. Given limited success we followed this effort with the exploration of a merger between PDSG and a specific systems integrator, and then most recently we again modified our market approach by reconfiguring the offering and removing many significant barriers to purchase including providing cloud based services under a SaaS model with generous evaluation options and minimal subscription duration commitments. All this has been done while curtailing cash burn and careful monitoring of the future investment requirements. We believe that this is an appropriate time to explore options in the market place focusing on strategic buyers that can have their market strategies enhanced by the unique and increasingly comprehensive attributes of the CDX-4 product suite and its ability to facilitate secure, standards based information sharing. As we announced on October 11, 2011, we have engaged a third party investment banker and have begun identifying and reaching out to potential acquirers and we hope to achieve a conclusion to this process relatively quickly.
Q: Why don't we ever hear about Holocom? Does Patriot still have an investment interest in Holocom?
A: Patriot continues to hold a preferred stock position in Holocom. Patriot's expectations are for its interest to eventually be realized upon a transactional event driving liquidity.
Q: Why is there such a lack of transparency at Patriot?
A: The perception that there is a lack of transparency stems largely from the nature of the licensing business. It begins with the fact that most prospective licensees do not proactively seek MMP Portfolio licenses. This can create a potentially contentious environment where the rights of the Portfolio often need to be aggressively negotiated with each licensor. Any information beyond what is not absolutely essential or required by law for public disclosure can be damaging to this effort. Similarly, litigation over infringement, like most any litigation engaged in by corporations, is generally not commented on until specific events are concluded. Also, even in the best of times the licensing business has had an episodic element to it. Unless and until a reasonable basis for forecasting future results becomes apparent, it would be inappropriate for us to make such speculations. While we understand shareholder frustration over transparency, Patriot has had to work within these confines. Unfortunately, this can lead to perceptions that there is an overall unreasonable or inappropriate lack of transparency. This is not to say that we aren't doing our best to increase transparency and will continue to do so, including assessing and differentiating information that truly needs to remain confidential and that which does not. Finally, there are several important factors that should be known which contribute to the success of the licensing business and we have been careful to enumerate these in the Risk Factors section of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2011, and the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2011. These are not boiler plate comments and we encourage you to read them carefully.
Q: When is the date for the next stockholders' meeting?
A: The Company plans to hold a physical meeting in Carlsbad California on Friday, February 10th, 2012 for stockholders of record as of December 16th, 2011.
Q: What is the status of the majority voting resolution approved at the last stockholders' meeting?
A: As you are aware, last year at our 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, our stockholders voted on a proposal (Proposal No. 3) which requested that our Board of Directors initiate a process to amend our governance documents to provide for majority voting with respect to the annual election of our Board of Directors. While this proposal was approved by the requisite vote at our 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the proposal was non-binding upon our Board of Directors and therefore its implementation is at the discretion of our Board of Directors. After careful consideration, the Board of Directors has decided to retain the plurality voting standard and not implement the proposal. The principal factors upon which the Board made its decision include the fact that a substantial majority of public companies still use the plurality standard due to the increased likelihood of a failed election or the potential that stockholders would not elect a director that is needed to satisfy a regulatory or experience requirement. We expect the topic of stockholder proposals to be addressed during the upcoming stockholder meeting.
Q: Does Patriot continue to purchase shares in the open market?
A: Yes, Patriot regularly purchases shares in the open market within the purview of the safe harbor of Rule 10b-18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Q: Are there significant stock option grants outstanding at the Board and management level for Patriot?
A: No. There are currently 1,800,000 options granted all of which are underwater and which represent less than half of one percent of all outstanding shares.
Q: Is there significant insider trading in Patriot's stock?
A: There is not significant trading activity on the part of Patriot's officers and Board. When trading activity does occur, our officers and Board members are required to self report this activity with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 4, Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership.
http://50.28.91.52/~patriots/...mp;task=view&id=283&Itemid=29
Price Size Exch Time
$0.0490 3,500 OBB 15:47:21<----------------170 $,ob da jemand mehr weiß ?
$0.0510 10,000 OBB 15:04:01
$0.0510 1,680 OBB 14:50:05
$0.0510 10,000 OBB 14:44:21
$0.0500 100 OBB 13:16:38<-----------------------
$0.0540 10,000 OBB 13:01:09
$0.0500 8,350 OBB 12:38:17
$0.0500 10,000 OBB 12:24:34
$0.0500 1,000 OBB 10:41:56 <---------------50 $,will wohl seine Rente sichern
$0.0510 10,000 OBB 09:30:49
In Erwartung des Abschlusses beim Patentamt über das ´584 habe ich heute ein paar Stücke geordert. Die Aufteilung ist leider pervers, bei dem geringen Umsatz allerdings auch kein Wunder. Die Order ist in drei kleine Teile zerrissen worden, wobei das Limit 0,01USD über den Ausführungskursen lag. Bitte schön für die Gebühren!
Nun gut, zurück zum Text.
Bei Vergleich des Zeitstrahles der zurückliegenden erfolgreichen Prüfungen dürfte im nächsten Jahr Februar der Prozess abgeschlossen sein. Dann ist auch das zusammengeführte Überprüfungsverfahren endlich abgehakt. Dann müssen Fakten geschaffen werden. Der Abschluss der Prüfungen dürfte keinen Kurs-Run auslösen. Das hebt keinen vom Hocker. Allerdings erwarte ich mit diesem Abschluss auch eine News Kette, auch in Zusammenhang mit den anstehenden Terminen der drei Streithähne.
Also ein rein spekulativer Kauf heute.
HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSOR USING INSTRUCTIONS THAT OPERATE WITHIN INSTRUCTION GROUPS
Optionen
| Boardmail an "microby" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Moderation
Zeitpunkt: 23.12.11 10:45
Aktion: Löschung des Beitrages
Kommentar: Löschung auf Wunsch des Verfassers
Zeitpunkt: 23.12.11 10:45
Aktion: Löschung des Beitrages
Kommentar: Löschung auf Wunsch des Verfassers
aus agora
Pretty impressive legal resume for Brandon Baum, glad he's on our side:
Brandon Baum combines a superb understanding of high technology with extensive jury trial experience. His forte is distilling and simplifying complex concepts to make them accessible to judges and juries. Brandon has served as lead counsel in patent cases, Markman hearings, mediation, and arbitrations, and has first-chaired numerous jury and court trials. He has litigated disputes in a wide array of technologies.
Since 2002, Brandon has served as an adjunct professor at U.C. Hastings, teaching an upper-division course in Patent Litigation. He also serves on the ADR panel of the Northern District of California as a court-appointed Early Neutral Evaluator and Mediator for intellectual property cases. Brandon was an IP partner in the Palo Alto office of Mayer Brown from 2005-10, and before that was a partner in the patent litigation group at Cooley LLP.
Representative matters include:
* Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal.) Representation of YouTube/Google in its efforts to obtain DMCA “notice and takedown” requests to the YouTube website.
* Island IP, LLC v. Promontory Interfinancial Network, LLC (S.D.N.Y.) Prosecution and defense of parallel patent litigations involving competing business method patents for bank deposit services.
* Intelligraphics. Inc. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Representation of Marvell Semiconductor in a case involving allegedly infringing software incorporated into Marvell’s wireless 802.11 chips.
* Tegic Communications, Inc. v. Zi Corporation (N.D. Cal.) Represented Zi Corporation against patents allegedly covering predictive text entry software used in the Nintendo Wii.
* Cryptography Research v. VISA International (N.D. Cal.) Representation of VISA against patents allegedly covering cryptographic protection of smartcards.
* FusionArc, Inc. v. Pay by Touch (N.D. Cal.) Representation of biometric payment system provider.
* University of Texas v. Kyocera Wireless, et al., 533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Represented wireless handset manufacturer against patent covering predictive text entry.
* IpVenture v. Prostar Computer, et al. (C.D. Cal.) Represented laptop computer maker against patent on methods for thermal and power management of computers (ACPI).
* Nazomi v. ARM Ltd. (N.D. Cal.) Represented patentee on patent for Java™ acceleration hardware for embedded devices.
* Procter & Gamble v. Clorox (S.D. Ohio) Represented Clorox against article of manufacture patent for P&G’s Febreze.
* Nvidia v. Microsoft (S.D.N.Y.) Represented nVidia in 5-day arbitration concerning the performance and pricing of graphics chips used in the Xbox.
* IPLearn cases (N.D. Cal) Represented patentee asserting e-learning software patent portfolio against major e-learning companies.
* Perfect 10 v. iBill, 340 F.Supp.2d 1077 (C.D. Cal. 2004) Obtained summary judgment for online payment provider against copyright infringement allegations.
* In re Red, 96 Fed.Appx. 229 (5th Cir. 2004) Successful trial and appeal of bankruptcy matter.
* Evergreen, et al. v. GATX, 52 Fed.Appx. 940 (9th Cir. 2002) Trial over alleged aircraft design defect.
Education
* University of California, Hastings College of Law, J.D., 1985 (Comm/Ent Law Journal)
* University of California, Berkeley, B.A., 1982
Memberships
* American Bar Association, IP Law Section
* Intellectual Property Owners Association, Litigation Committee
* IEEE Computer Society
* AV-rated by Martindale Hubbell
* Who’s Who in the World (Marquis)
* Palo Alto “Legal Eagle of the Year” for 2009
Publications/Presentations
* 10 Mistakes That Will Kill Your Patent in Litigation (2011).
* Top 10 Issues for Patent Litigators in 2011 (2010).
* Attorneys’ Fees under Section 285: A Double Standard in Patent Litigation (2010).
* Supreme Court to Review Standard For Proving Induced Patent Infringement (2010).
* Prefiling Considerations, Practising Law Institute (2010).
* Offshoring Your IP: Unanticipated Intellectual Property Issues, BNA/CITE (2010).
* The Importance of Preservation, The Recorder/Law.com (2010).
* International Tax Reporting & Compliance, BNA/CITE (2010).
* Advanced Patent Licensing: What You Need to Know Before Licensing Your Patent, Practicing Law Institute (2009).
* Rethinking Litigation Strategy in a Down Economy, IP Litigator (2009).
* Don’t Mess With Texas: Transferring Venue to California, New Matter, State Bar of California (2009).
* Ownership of Employee Inventions/Works, SVAGC Annual All Hands Meeting (2008).
* Infringement Issues For Claim Drafters, Practicing Law Institute (2008).
* Markman Hearings: Where the Rubber Meets the Road, State Bar of Texas, Advanced Patent Litigation Course (2007).
* Pre-filing Considerations: Ten Things to Ponder Before Filing a Patent Infringement Action, Practicing Law Institute, 906 PLI/Pat 355 (2007).
* Defending Against a Patent Assertion, Practicing Law Institute, 851 PLI/Pat 263 (2005).
* Doing Deals: The 12 Traits of Successful Negotiators, Books24x7 (2005).
* Preserving Confidentiality, Strafford Publications (2005).
* Non-Disclosure and Confidential Agreements: A Detailed Look at NDAs, ISBN: 1596220295 (2004).
* Self-Defense in the Battle over Vicarious Liability on the Internet, ABA Annual Meeting (2004).
* Golden Rules of Patent Litigation, IP Worldwide (2002).
* Leading Intellectual Property Lawyers: Best Practices for Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, ISBN: 1587621606 (2001).
nochmals wow, das sieht nach excellenter arbeit seitens tpl/alliacense für das anstehende markman aus. (immer noch 27.jan.2012, auch für barco)
1) die auflistung der top 10 claims, mit erklärung, historie und ableitungen aus vorherigen cases.
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1628016#message
2) begriffliche vorgaben und die aufforderung an den judge, damit klarheit für technologischen abläufe und deren bedeutung unmissverständlich vorzugeben.
http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1628018#message
Da wird versucht die Aktie wertlos erscheinen zu lassen.
Name Kurs Bid Stk. Bid Ask Ask Stk.
Nasdaq OTC Bulletin Board 0,045 5.000 0,03 0,253 5.000
Stuttgart 0,041 15.000 0,035 0,041 50.000
Tradegate 0,054 20.000 0,03 0,054 20.000
Frankfurt 0,03 180.600 0,03 0,054 82.500
München 0,042 5.000 0,03 0,054 5.000
Berlin 0,03 n.a. 0,03 0,054 n.a.
Der Witz ist der,hat jemand PTSC im Depot und hat sie beliehen,kann es theoretisch passieren das ein Teil zwangsverkauft wird um auf die Beleihungsgrenze zurück zu kommen.
Unter normalen Umständen verkauft nur ein Depp für 3 Cent.
Und das dann öfters,mal sehen ob er immer noch 3 Cent bezahlen will.
endlich wieder eine Lizenz! Ein kleines Schwergewicht in der Branche, immerhin
Optionen
| Boardmail an "microby" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
CARLSBAD, Calif., January 3, 2012--(PR Newswire)-Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC - News) today announced that TE Connectivity, Ltd., a leading global provider of engineered electronic components, network solutions, undersea telecommunication systems, and specialty products has purchased an MMP™ Portfolio license.
About Patriot Scientific Corporation
Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC) is the co-owner of the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio licensing partnership, and is the parent of the wholly owned subsidiary, PDSG. For more information on PTSC, visit www.ptsc.com.
About the MMP Portfolio™
The MMP Portfolio includes seven US patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts, which cover techniques that enable higher performance and lower cost designs essential to consumer and commercial digital systems ranging from PCs, cell phones and portable music players to communications infrastructure, medical equipment and automobiles.
Contact:
Patriot Investor Relations
ir@ptsc.com
760-547-2700
Infolge einer LIZENZ.
Folgen keine weiteren Lizenzen, wird der Kurs auch wieder einbrechen wie gehabt.
Wann ist denn die HV ?
Immerhin mal wieder eine Lizenz, also ein Lebenszeichen, PTSC ist also noch nicht tot,
hat vorläufig noch genug CASH;
http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Hot-Stocks-or-Not-A-Reality-C…
.
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Gilbertus" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
CARLSBAD, Calif. , Jan. 6, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC.OB - News) today announced that the GTECH Corporation subsidiary of Lottomatica Group has purchased an MMP™ Portfolio license. GTECH operates in over 50 countries including the U.S. providing on-line and instant lottery product solutions to various regulatory authorities.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...Announces-prnews-2953967650.html?x=0
Gruß CJ
es geht aufwärts, schön
Optionen
| Boardmail an "microby" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |
Reexam Terminated -- Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate Mailed
Application Number:
90/011,169
Customer Number:
Filing or 371 (c) Date:
08-20-2010
Status:
Reexam Terminated -- Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate Mailed
Application Type:
Re-Examination
Status Date:
01-06-2012
Examiner Name:
RIMELL, SAMUEL G
Location:
ELECTRONIC
Group Art Unit:
3992
Location Date:
Confirmation Number:
1864
Earliest Publication No:
Attorney Docket Number:
0081-011D4X4
Earliest Publication Date:
Class / Subclass:
700/001
Patent Number:
First Named Inventor:
5784584
Issue Date of Patent:
Update MMP Patentportfolio
HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSOR USING INSTRUCTIONS THAT OPERATE WITHIN INSTRUCTION GROUPS
US ´584
Status:
Reexam Terminated -- Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate Mailed 
Status Date: 01-06-2012
beim Vergleich mit dem US ´148 dürfte die Publikation nicht lange auf sich warten lassen! die kam beim ´148 schon am nächsten Tag
Damit wäre das MMP komplett, teilweise mehrfach, durch das uspto durch! Beste Vorraussetzungen um die T3 
hart zu treffen.
Nur meine Meinung!
Optionen
| Boardmail an "microby" |
Wertpapier: Patriot Scientific |