Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006

BARNES & NOBLE, INC  December 6, 2012

On July 24, 2012, Technology Properties Limited, LLC, Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC, and Patriot Scientific Corporation (collectively, TPL) submitted a complaint to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), captioned Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-853, requesting that the ITC institute an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The complaint alleges that the sale for importation into the United States, the importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of Barnes & Noble, Inc."s NOOKTM products infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336. The complaint also asserts similar claims against the products of 23 other Respondents. The complaint requests that the ITC issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease-and-desist order with respect to these products. On August 21, 2012, the ITC issued a Notice of Institution of Investigation and delegated authority for factfinding on the public interest to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing the case. On September 24, 2012, Barnes & Noble filed a response to the complaint, denying that its products infringe the "336 patent and denying that it has engaged in any action that would constitute unlawful sale for importation into the United States, importation, or sale within the United States after importation. Barnes & Noble also asserted ten affirmative defenses. The ALJ subsequently set a procedural schedule that governs the investigation, with the following important dates: fact discovery ends on February 22, 2013; initial expert reports are due March 27, 2013; and expert discovery ends on May 1, 2013. The trial is scheduled for June 3 to June 14, 2013, with a final initial determination due by September 6, 2013, and a target date for ITC resolution of the investigation on January 6, 2014. On September 28, 2012, Co-Respondent Sierra Wireless filed a motion seeking to terminate the investigation due to TPL"s alleged lack of candor toward the ITC in failing to disclose ongoing California state court litigation that calls into question the proper ownership of the "336 patent. On October 16, 2012, Barnes & Noble and several Co-Respondents filed a motion to stay the investigation, asking the ALJ to provide sufficient time for the California state court to resolve the ownership dispute. Those motions are currently pending before the ALJ.
Also on July 24, 2012, TPL filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint similarly alleges that Barnes & Noble is infringing the "336 patent through the importation and sale in the United States of NOOKTM products. The complaint also alleges that Barnes & Noble is infringing two other patents in the same patent family: U.S. Patent No. 5,440,749 and U.S. Patent No. 5,530,890. On September 21, 2012, TPL and Barnes & Noble filed a stipulation agreeing to stay the action pending final resolution of the ITC action. On September 26, 2012, the District Court granted the motion to stay.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890491/...3181/d435954d10q.htm  

Amazon and its affiliates should pay damages of approximately $42 million.
posted on Feb 09, 13 06:22PM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]

AMAZON COM INC 01/30/2013:

In July 2012, Technology Properties Limited, Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, and Patriot Scientific Corporation filed a complaint against us for patent infringement in the United States International Trade Commission and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among other things, that using the Kindle Fire in combination with certain peripheral devices infringes U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336, entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock.” The ITC complaint seeks an exclusion order preventing the importation of Kindle Fire into the United States. The district court complaint asserts infringement of two additional patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749 and 5,530,890, both entitled “High Performance, Low Cost Microprocessor Architecture”—and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and an injunction. In a November 2012 letter to the Company plaintiff alleged specifically that, if we are found to infringe the patents-in-suit and the patents are found to be valid (both of which we dispute), Amazon and its affiliates should pay damages of approximately $42 million, subject to enhancement, plus $17 million in prejudgment interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/...520/d445434d10k.htm  

:-))
Ich weiß,die 59 000 000 $ hatten dir so gut gefallen,mir auch.
Jetzt warten wir auf die Dividente.:-))  

ich hoffe mehr auf dividende und nicht auf ente,die krieg ich in jedem mittelmässigen lokal
lol

gerade gesehen.....sind die 47 gezahlt worden ??? oder wovon abhängig ?
Danke für Erklärung dem noch angetrunkenen KC  

chin. Gemüse nicht mehr aus dem Kopf.:-))  

Zeit Kurs + Zusatz Umsatz Umsatz kumuliert
  08:11:37§ 0,087 800 800

Jetzt noch 40% steigen dann hat er rund 6 EU verdient wenn er rechtzeitig verkauft.:-))  

bei amazon dreht es sich um das kindle und es stehen 42 ++ Millionen USD im Raum, nicht unerheblich

die US ITC wird in den kommenden Monaten Fakten schaffen wie es um diese Forderung vor Gericht steht, dann kann sich auch Amazon mit den noch übrigen 12 entscheiden

aber samsung steht auch auf der Liste! und das ist ein Elektronikkonzern, amazon ein Händler, samsung, htc, acer das sind die aktuell wachsenden Unternehmen die Forderungen wahrscheinlich in deutlich größeren Summen abstreiten, wie lange noch?

da hat tpl tatsächlich Arbeit für die nächsten 10 Jahre vor sich

nur meine Meinung
microby  

Moore - so ein Wissenschaftler könnte vor Gericht schnell für klare Verhältnise sorgen.
Warum setzt TPL (nach der Einigung Moore Leckrone) ihn nicht ein?  

für das Gericht ist es deutlich besser, wenn ein neutraler Gutachter zu den Klagen Stellung nimmt.
Ein Richter kann diese Dinge nicht beurteilen, deswegen sind Fähigkeit und Glaubwürdigkeit dort so wichtig.  

ist als zeuge benannt!  

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...tion-announces-annual-000900026.html  

fahre ich gerne auch mal nach Carlsbad.
Sollte ja auch nicht so schwer sein.
Amazon 60 Mio
Barnes  40 Mio
Sierra 10 Mio

Sollte reichen und es bleibt noch was für Gehälter übrig.  

aber das in der Pfalz, oder ?  

fliege ich First Class und trinke Champagner mit Strapsbedienung

Dann kann Carlsbad auch auf´m Himalaya sein

 

...im Himalaya? Da wirst Du aber frieren!

 

das gibt einen ordentlichen Eiszapfen :)  

die Bedienung trägt die Strapse.
Das ist der Vorteil von Dividendenempfängern, die haben halt die dicke Hose an....das wird leider nixe mit Eiszapfe  

http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/itc13/...%20Response%202-12-13.PDF  

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION February 14, 2013 ORDER GRANTING CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Patriot Scientific Corporation File No. 000-22182- CF#28616 _____________________ Patriot Scientific Corporation submitted an application under Rule 24b-2 requesting confidential treatment for information it excluded from the Exhibits to a Form 8-K filed on July 17, 2012, as amended on February 4, 2013. Based on representations by Patriot Scientific Corporation that this information qualifies as confidential commercial or financial information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), the Division of Corporation Finance has determined not to publicly disclose it. Accordingly, excluded information from the following exhibit(s) will not be released to the public for the time period(s) specified: Exhibit 10.7 Exhibit 10.8 Exhibit 10.9 through July 17, 2017 through July 17, 2017 through July 17, 2017 For the Commission, by the Division of Corporation Finance, pursuant to delegated authority: Maryse Mills-Apenteng Special Counsel ý http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/836564/...000966/filename1.pdf  

was bedeutet das ?  

bedeutet es das die SEC zugestimmt hat bestimmte Sachverhalte nicht per Filing bekannt zu geben, obwohl sie grundsätzlich veröffentlicht werden müßten.  

dann eher negativ für uns oder ?
alles was nicht bekannt ist, ist nicht gerade kursförderlich...oder ?  

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/836564/...triot_10q-113012.htm

scrollen bis seite 35, handelt sich um die neuen lizensierungsverträge mit alliacense und tpl

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, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to our Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 11, 2012 (Commission file No. 000-22182).†

10.8
Agreement effective July 11, 2012 between Technology Properties Limited, LLC and the Company, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to our Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 11, 2012 (Commission file No. 000-22182).†

10.9
Agreement effective July 17, 2012 among Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC, Alliacense Limited, LLC, Technology Properties Limited, LLC, and the Company, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to our Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 11, 2012 (Commission file No. 000-22182).†  

http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/t3/...5-13%20_filed%202-18-13_.pdf