Thanks CB. Here's more for you to decode for us. <g>
And just as three minds are deemed better than
one in deciding appeals, four minds may often be
better than three when a complex claim construction
is at issue.
Thanks to Brokentrade we have a digitized copy of
IDC's Markman brief......
By contrast, Ericsson appears to focus on what
the claims do not cover, rather than what they
mean.
Message 12774523
....and a summary of Ericsson's response:
Ericsson summarizes their argument as follows.
They claim that the disagreements between the
parties fall into four distinct areas, the
first three of which involve the construction
of 'means-plus-function' elements....
First, InterDigital routinely ignores claim
language defining portions of the recited
functions.
Second, IDC ignores necessary components of
the structure described in the patents for
performing the recited functions.
Third, IDC seeks to have the Special Master
rule on structural 'equivalents thereof'
under 35USC 112, par 6. Ericsson believes
that the question of structural 'equivalents'
is one for the jury and not a proper subject
for consideration by the Special Master.
Finally, InterDigital's claim construction
analysis and experts contradict and ignore
the 15 years of prosecution history before
the PTO in which IDC's lawyers made
numerous representations about what claim
terms mean. In Appendix B Ericsson sets
forth the prosecution histories.
ragingbull.com
How I understand the complexity of this case relates
to the following:
1) Motorola base stations work with Motorola and
Ericsson handsets.
2) Ericsson base stations work with Ericsson and
Motorola handsets.
The 1995 Motorola case did not include a Markman
proceeding and ultimately involved 24
representative claims from 251 claims in 4 IDC
TDMA patents that the jury decided in Motorola's
favor. The JMOL reinstated 3 claims in IDC's
favor but upheld the 21 representative claims
decided by the jury.
Judge Sander's 5/99 denial of Ericsson's Partial
Motion for Summary Judgement contains a highly
readable background of the Motorola case:
Among the issues litigated at the trial in the
Motorola lawsuit was whether Motorola was liable
for contributory infringement by cellular phone
users or cellular system operators who used
Motorola United States Digital Cellular ('USDC')
subscriber units' i.e, Motorola cellular
telephones along with base stations and
switching equipment manufactured by Ericsson
ragingbull.com
What remains to be seen is how the Markman hearing
will further reduce the number of patent claims to
be presented to the jury in the Ericsson case.
Question: Structural equivalents are part of claim
construction which is a question of law, right?
The Federal Circuit Reinterprets the
Chiuminatta Decision (6/99)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit recently held that the determination
of structural equivalents when deciding literal infringement under 35 U.S.C. 112, 6 hinges upon
the "overall structure" disclosed, not the
individual components within that structure
Message 12880514
All in all, what anyone can really strive for in
any patent case, it seems, is a reasonable basis
for optimism or pessimism. And that's an issue
any investor ultimately has to decide for himself
or herself regarding the TDMA opportunity for a
company like IDC which has highly visible TDMA
and CDMA opportunities. |
