A good summary of RMBS IP history by itclyr on YHOO:
Re: StockSentinel, while it may be possi
by: itclyr 12/24/00 4:52 pm
Msg: 204964 of 205006
Pay attention closely, Stocksentinel, and maybe at the end you'll understand a few things that you obviously don't now.
You said: "Taking nine years in its self is an indication of how many times RMBS had to revise and resubmit the patent before the patent office would grant it a patent."
Response: It didn't take nine years for the first patents to issue. RMBS' original filing in April 1990 was a long application with MORE THAN ONE INVENTION. When this happens, the patent office issues what is called a Restriction Requirement, which forces the applicant to pick one of the several inventions for further examination and possible amendment. The applicant can always opt to pay a separate issue fee for each application and continue prosecution, but for a very small company (RMBS was VERY small in 1990) this is usually to expensive to do all at once so it is done in SERIES rather than parallel. Thus, when one application is indicated to be allowable, the applicant files a "Continuation" application which merely CONTINUES the prosecution with the same application ALREADY ON FILE but for a different invention. That is what RMBS did here. All but one of the patents currently being litigated were FILED in the USPTO on April 18, 1990. NO ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WAS ADDED AFTER THAT POINT. Thus, RMBS could not have "stolen" these inventions from later JEDEC meetings because those documents were already filed in the USPTO. The filing dates and prosecution histories of all of these patents are public information and simply cannot be disputed.
But even if it did take nine years, the patent is still a valid patent until proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
You said: "I wouldn’t be surprised that the clerk assigned to that one granted it to them just to get rid of that application."
Response: That doesn't happen. Examiners (not "clerks" which shows how little you know about the operation of the patent office)are required to follow standard procedures for examining applications, following a "Manual of Patent Examining Procedures" that is about 4 inches thick. They don't "just give up." They issue what is called a "Final Rejection" and the applicant can either pay more money to get additional examining time or appeal the case to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).
You also said: "If I was at work I could bury you with links for cases where patents where invalidated by the courts, but I doubt that would convince you."
Response: I doubt you could, frankly. But instead of an avalanche of useless cases that are all vastly different from RMBS facts, why don't you send us a link to the best case you think supports the MU/Infineon/Hyundai position. I posted my analysis months ago of the 2 or 3 patent cases most nearly on point, including why I think they are all distinguishable or support RMBS. I've been involved in patent litigation long enough to know that litigation is an inherently risky procedure. But as a company whose entire asset base is patents, what exactly do you expect RMBS to do when it believes its patents are being infringed? While there is always risk in litigating, I do believe RMBS' position to be the better one from what I've seen so far.
Please come back when you have real analysis to offer. So far, you've just wasted otherwise useful bandwidth on this board. I apologize in advance if I'm coming across too strong. I do wish you a merry Christmas. But you really need to offer something useful here next time.
ITC |
