Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Dennis Crouch

  • Professor TJ Chiang is blogging on PrawfsBlawg. Topics include: Mossoff’s Trespass Fallacy; The Supreme Court’s NEW patent law textualism; and The Paradox of Patents.
  • As we await the verdict, read the 20-page jury form for Apple v. Samsung: [Link]. In the end, the jury is deciding infringement of one-claim from each of three different utility patents; four different design patents; a claim to both registered and unregistered trade dress; breach of contract and monopolization. Samsung’s countersuit includes five utility patents.
  • I’ll be speaking at the IPO annual meeting on Sept 10 in San Antonio along with my former boss Paul Berghoff – see you there.

5 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Dennis Crouch

  1. Good article when one looks for a patent. Is there a Universal patent list? It is too easy to overlap someone else’s patent.

  2. And if you think not getting help from a LAWYER LOLOLOLOL or my FAMILY LOLOLOLOL you have got to be absolutely out of your minds. This is how I got into this mess. The Law will be my help!

  3. 2012-07-24
    13 Companies Cited for Infringement of MMP Portfolio(TM) in ITC Complaint

    The MMP Portfolio(TM) Licensing Program is Dramatically Strengthened Via Markman Victory and Filing of ITC and District Court Complaints

    CARLSBAD, California – July 24, 2012 – (PR Newswire)-Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC – News) announced today that the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program – already among the most successful of all-time – is being further enhanced with a first wave of aggressive ITC enforcement activities. Technology Properties Limited (TPL) and Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC), have filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) and corresponding complaints in the US District Court for the Northern District of California against 13 companies believed to be infringing the MMP Portfolio patents. The move defends the investments of the enormous MMP Portfolio licensee community of nearly 100 global industry leaders (with combined annual revenue of approximately $1.4 trillion), the investments of PTSC and TPL in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program, and the investments of TPL in its own semiconductor product lines.

    The 13 ITC respondents are: Acer Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc., Garmin Ltd., HTC Corporation, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Kyocera Corporation, LG Electronics, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Novatel Wireless Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Sierra Wireless Inc., and ZTE Corporation.

    The three-pronged strategy includes: (1) a Complaint filed with the US International Trade Commission seeking an Exclusion Order prohibiting the importation of unlicensed products; (2) parallel actions in US District Court seeking damages for past infringement that includes past un-paid royalties — plus the interest which has accrued on those royalties — both tripled for willful infringement, plus attorney’s fees; and, (3) the pursuit of injunctions in both the US District Court and the ITC barring the sale of infringing products in the United States in the future.

    These latest lawsuits come close on the heels of Alliacense’s unprecedented series of 17 consecutive re- examination victories spanning six years of spurious attacks from a powerful group of serial infringers.

    And on June 12, 2012, the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued a “Markman” ruling, remarkable for its resounding defeat of the last-remaining ground being clung to by a recalcitrant group of unlicensed, serial infringers. In so doing, the Court aligns with the MMP Portfolio’s 2006 Markman victory, handed down by Judge Ward in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and decisively confirms the claim construction arguments of the Alliacense Team.

    About the MMP Portfolio(TM)

    The MMP Portfolio patents, originated by The TPL Group in 1989, includes US, European and Japanese patents, covering 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. Widely recognized as fundamental technology, the sweeping scope of MMP Portfolio(TM) technologies continues to encourage the world’s leading companies to become MMP Portfolio(TM) licensees. Learn more: customerservice@alliacense.com. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

    About Patriot Scientific Corporation

    Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation (PTSC) is the co-owner of the MMP Portfolio(TM). For more information on PTSC, visit http://www.ptsc.com.

    About Alliacense

    Alliacense is the recognized leader in the design and execution of Intellectual Property (IP) licensing programs, and delivers peerless IP project support and reverse engineering services. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, technology experts, and experienced business development/management executives, Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of IP portfolios under management. Learn more: http://www.alliacense.com.

    About The TPL Group

    Founded in 1988, The TPL Group has evolved as a coalition of technology-based enterprises dedicated to the development, management and commercialization of proprietary technology, and the design, manufacture and sales of proprietary products based on those IP assets. Among the advanced products that TPL brings to market are multi-core microprocessors, memory management and control devices, advanced hearing and listening solutions, energy efficient computing architectures, encryption storage products, sub-wavelength acoustic transducers, wafer-level packaging, and solderless PCB-assembly technology. Learn more: http://www.tplgroup.net.

    Safe Harbor Statement: Statements herein which are not purely historical, including statements regarding Patriot Scientific Corporation’s intentions, hopes, beliefs, expectations, representations, projections, plans or predictions of the future are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the risk that the recently filed actions and newly implemented strategy may not be successful or result in additional revenues for the Company. It is important to note that the Company’s actual results could differ materially from those in any such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company’s cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, and seasonality. Our business could be affected by a number of other factors, including the risk factors listed from time to time in the Company’s SEC reports including, but not limited to, the 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 February 29, 2012. The Company cautions investors not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements contained herein. Patriot Scientific Corporation disclaims any obligation, and does not undertake to update or revise any forward-looking statements made herein.

    Contact:
    Patriot Investor Relations
    ir@ptsc.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
    760-547-2700 ext. 102

    Next >
    Forward-Looking Statements: Patriot Scientific does not routinely undertake to publicly update or revise its forward-looking statements, even if experience or future changes make it clear that any projected results (expressed or modified) will not be realized.

    Forward-Looking Information: The statements in Patriot Scientifics news releases and public filings may contain forward-looking information within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve certain risks, assumptions and uncertainties. In each case, actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking statements. Any statements regarding targets for future results are forward-looking, and actual results may differ materially. These are the company’s targets, not predictions of actual performance.

    Safe Harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this information contain statements forward looking in time which involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company’s cash flow, market acceptance risks, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

    Receive News & Investor Updates

    Please e-mail ir@ptsc.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it to be added to our news and investor updates e-mail list.

    This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Patriot Scientific Corporation
    701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 170
    Carlsbad, CA 92011-1045
    Telephone: (760) 547-2700
    Facsimile: (760) 547-2705

    link to 50.28.91.52

  4. Malcolm, a good double-patenting case for your consideratoin: Eli Lilly v. Teva link to cafc.uscourts.gov

    The court held no double patenting.

    1. With respect to a prior patented compound, the patented compound was not obvious.

    2. With respect to a prior patent on chemical intermediate use to make final products, the fact that the patented coumpound was disclosed as one of the possible final productwas irrelent.

    The case distinguished the prior caes involving disclosed uses of a patented compound. Patenting disclosed uses would actually extend protection of the patented compound. That is why disclosed uses can be used as part of the double patenting analysis.

    Good case.

Comments are closed.