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

bim 

By: teecee in IDCC | Recommend this post (5)
Wed, 15 Aug 12 3:48 PM | 434 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications
Msg. 45881 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 45880 by bim24)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

the hurdle for summary determination is very high...it is rarely granted...the fact that we are still alive on the second motion...and that position seems to have been strengthened by the cafc decision is a big positive...maybe the cafc decision didnt apply to the 127 patent or else idc would have filed the same papers in that case..or maybe the cafc came too late to affect the decision.. Mr. Green Mr. Green Mr. Green




Avatar


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
i am a wondering why the ITC judge denied
By: bim24
in IDCC
Wed, 15 Aug 12 3:59 AM
Msg. 45880 of 48237

the summary determination for the 127 patent and then keeping this 636 one alive, at least so far.

from my underestanding the 7970127 patent is based on the the previous 509 patent/ 1/2 rate encoder from the first trial... i thought that was a really strong patent but the judge ruled that it applied to basestations (my recollection)... and this 127 patent was supposed to enhance the language to encompass handsets.


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