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: i briefly reread the cafc appeals

By: bim24 in IDCC | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 15 Jan 13 10:26 PM | 287 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications 		Msg. 46411 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 46410 by bim24)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

expanding further,
the panel stated that there were two alternate avenues that nok wants to challange/confirm.

1) Nok devices don't infringe b/c the scrambling codes in nok system are not transmitted

2) idcc doesn't satisfy domestic industry.


#2 is shot now. It is clear what Nok will try to do next. I can't comment on if there devices trasmitted codes or not.



- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
i briefly reread the cafc appeals
By: bim24 in IDCC
Tue, 15 Jan 13 10:16 PM 		Msg. 46410 of 48237

regarding the power claim, the panel basically said that nok devices transmit power intermittently (vs continuously) and the ALJ errored in saying that IDCC patent claim only covers continuous power ramps. They also went on to say that the ALJ 'should have construed "increased power level" to include both intermittent and continuous increase in power.

is this not saying indirectly that NOK is infringing? If the current ITC case and the remand commission can't see this, something is wrong.

I have skimmed over a few other cases on remand the ITC Commission issued an ID fairly quick, based on the cafc instructions.

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