Darrell - Several comments:
The agent not only revalidated 089 for modulation and vo-coders (the major argument of the ERICY case against IDC), but approved it with additional claims 16 through 22.
First and foremost, additional claims are not enforceable against 'infringers' who were infringing before the re-issue.
ERICY main claim against IDC all had to do with claims made in US Patents in 089, and IDC not only gets those claims revalidated but they get every claim protested by MOT in their trial revalidated.
Nonetheless it is an ex-parte process, and thus is only a relatively weak indicator of future success against challenge. It is for this reason that it is hard to get a patent injunction based purely on a patent, even a re-issued one.
Finally, I should note that 4817089 is 'unique' in much the same way as Qualcomm's Standards 'Claim Stakes'. It even goes so far as to specify a modulation scheme, which I might add GSM does not use. I would bet a lot of money that it won't actually hold up in court against GSM at all, and probably not against NA-TDMA. The reason is that it is certainly true that TDMA cell phone systems do 'infringe' on pieces of the patent, but the pieces on which they infringe are, taken as a lump, still pretty obvious or prior art and thus not enforceable. (e.g. is anyone using their modulation scheme an infringer? Ans - no, since people have been using that scheme long before their patent).
Clark
PS I apologize for zinging you, as that certainly is not my intent, but people tend to think that because something is patented it is a guaranteed asset, but the reality is that patents are like land in Australia. Some is very valuable, but most is pretty much worthless scrub. (Not picking on Autralia here other than it is the the most arid populated land mass.) |
