Interdigital Communication(IDCC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Interdigital Communication(IDCC)

IDCC 348.69

+0.8%

Nov 14 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: George Leeper who wrote (4105)	3/6/2000 9:21:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (2) of 5195

Fulbright & Jaworski is representing IDC in the Ericsson case. It is also representing Harris Corporation in a patent infringement case against Ericsson that completed its Markman proceeding last week with a victory for Harris in terms of the claim construction to be presented to the jury. The Harris vs Ericsson lawsuit has the same special master as the IDC vs Ericsson lawsuit and the same judge as the Qcom vs Ericsson lawsuit which was settled last year. Corpgold has some useful background info on the patents involved in the Harris and IDC lawsuits: Re HarrisCorp: patent number 4817089 (which is the current subject of the ERICY lawsuit) is currently owned and assigned to IDC. It was originally assigned to a Titan Linkabit through Paneth, et. al., the inventors. Titan Linkabit eventually merged with Titan Corporation. The assignment and ownership was transferred to IDC under inter-company agreements. Nonetheless, Harris Corporation's TDMA designs were based, in part, on 4817089. Harris had, at one time, the only relationship (besides IDC) with the original assignee, Titan Linkabit, giving Harris an agreement to build TDMA systems based on the patent. The dual lawsuit brought against Harris and IDC was principally based on interpretation of the 4817089. A positive Special Master ruling (which the ruling represented) in reference to Harris is in part a very positive ruling for IDC. IDC OWNS 4817089. Harris' based TDMA design on the patent, but does not own it. ragingbull.com Interestingly enough, Ericsson awarded Harris a major contract recently even though the Harris vs Ericsson lawsuit calls for sanctions reflecting some vitriol between the lawyers, according to Brokentrade. The 1995 IDC vs Motorola case also called for sanctions but both formal requests were denied because both legal camps were deemed to have acted badly.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next