Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: loop and/or attorneys

By: bim24 in IDCC | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 31 Jan 12 7:59 PM | 254 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications 		Msg. 44450 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 44446 by zzfan)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

hey loop

thx, you are probably right and i am reading too much into it...

but i do take a little comfort in the HTC/ipcom decision when the court recited the following


"Words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Vitronics Corp. v. Concep- tronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The plain language of claims 1 and 18 indicates that the network, not the mobile station, performs the enumerated functions.
In addition to examining the claim language, the dis- trict court should have referred to the specification to understand the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The specification is in parity with the claim language, confirm- ing that the network, rather than the base station, per- forms the enumerated functions.
.
.
.
The district court placed too much weight on the ap- plicants’ use of the word “process” when the claim lan- guage and the specification indicated that the applicants did not claim a process."


the issue they were discussing about the patent in question was if it was the handset or the network that was doing the handover process.

how does this parralel or mirror the idcc patent? how about replacing the above with code/signal and limiting it to spreading code?

MO (trying to find ways to convince myself further of our strength in the cafc)
bim


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: loop and/or attorneys
By: zzfan in IDCC
Tue, 31 Jan 12 8:41 AM 		Msg. 44446 of 48237

Bim,

Let me begin by saying that every case is a new case at the CAFC. Defense attorneys have mastered the art of confusion and the same laundry list of defenses are now filed in every case whether it is an ITC 337 investigation or in a Federal District Court. The matter of infringement boils down to whether or not a product intersects a claim in a patent issued to and owned by the complainant/plaintiff. Sounds simple, right. I mean we are dealing with science which is normally an objective based study. well, a funny thing happened on the way from the USPO to the patentee and to the courthouse. Defense counsel began to produce Professor Irwin Corey and Norm Crosby type expert witnesses with magnificent curriculum vitaes who analyze every word contained in the patent claim language. This would have been OK had the courts been placing judges on the bench who had true science backgrounds. Unfortunately, the government appointed judges with political science backgrounds, a Doctorate of Jurisprudence and very close connections to large donors of time and money to the political party in power at the time of these appointments. The patent litigation arena became a hotbed for paid prostituting experts to confuse and abuse the system. The system recognized the problem and created Markman Hearings to define the claims before submission to the jury. The CAFC is the sole jurisdiction for review of patent disputes. We have not yet created a group of district courts with judges seated with true science backgrounds, but the ground swells have been growing sufficiently that this may soon be a reality to the delight of patent holders across the USA.

Now, regarding you question, the HTC decision has little or no effect on the IDCC/Nok matter. However, if you read the opinion about 10 times, you can get the flavor of how the defense attorneys have managed to take advantage of the confusion of wordings in the patents at issue. The judge did not have a clue, the attorneys pretended to be clueless and thus they all agreed to produce a summary judgment and send it on to the CAFC to give them direction. After reading the opinion, the CAFC sent it back via a reversal, but confusion still exists which will costs both sides plenty moving forward. Every claim definition dispute is treated as if this was the first case ever and is reviewed under court created guidelines that can change with the wind depending upon the temperatures of the 3 judge panel involved or the entire set of judges if they so choose the undertaking.

We can safely say we are still in the game after the expiration of time, but the objective finding under the subjective process is still anybody's guess. My patent lawyer contacts are upbeat about it and they are far more qualified to base an opinion than I will ever be. I have a box of snickers on my desk sitting right next to my Tug McGraw baseball card which stands against a picture of the USA hockey team that beat the Russians.

MO
loop

« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next