Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
Replies to Msg. #781536
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
46417 Re: i briefly reread the cafc appeals
   bim, from my understanding, IDCC did not actually invent the continuou... 		Cdog   IDCC   16 Jan 2013
 8:09 PM
46416 CAFC Favors Non-Practicing Entities on "Domestic Injury"
   CAFC Favors Non-Practicing Entities on "Domestic Injury" Analysis... 		DND   IDCC   16 Jan 2013
 6:16 PM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: i briefly reread the cafc appeals

By: bim24 in IDCC
Wed, 16 Jan 13 2:33 AM
Msg. 46415 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 46413 by zzfan)
Jump to msg. #  

well, there were 2 claims that were in the appeal that was reversed.

1) meaning of code... nok transmits scrambling vs spreading code, etc...

2) the power claim (continuous vs intermittent)


as I said before in my first post, I believe the cafc basically said idcc patent covers both power claims and nok is doing one of them.


they can try and contest the #1 as the CAFC ruled that the new meaning of code will need to be reapplied, but they should be infringing on #2. As the WM once said, it only takes 1 claim to be right.


remand should read something like the following:

infringe #2

reapply code meaning and test for infringement on #1


I'm ok with the latter b/c it will just strengthen the current cases against all parties in the current ITC case. I personally would like to go for the wilfful infringement in the Delaware fed court while the remand happens... unless summary determination can end the current ITC cases quickly due to this remand.