Barry, re: <No one have anything to say about the Infineon filing and Avo's comment as reported by J Robertson?>
Since that was posted to me, I'll respond. It's not unsuspected, but there are few details I've been able to find. But then again, I don't have any expertise in the area, so I probably wouldn't understand it anyway. <g>
I think it would be in everyone's best interest to get the IP issue resolved. Since Infineon is one of the larger players this may be the lawsuit that does it. I have never expressed an opinion on the validity of the IP, mainly since I'm not qualified to make an opinion. I do believe, however, that Rambus' valuation is closely tied to the IP.
The only documents I've seen were posted by rambusite. I took a look at the document out of interest, but what little is there is confusing.
rambusite.com
The docket document references this statute:
Satute 35:145
Sec. 145. Civil action to obtain patent
An applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in an appeal under section 134 of
this title may, unless appeal has been taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, have remedy by civil
action against the Commissioner in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if commenced within such time
after such decision, not less than sixty days, as the Commissioner appoints. The court may adjudge that such applicant is
entitled to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in any of his claims involved in the decision of the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences, as the facts in the case may appear and such adjudication shall authorize the Commissioner to issue
such patent on compliance with the requirements of law. All the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.
Perhaps one of the lawyer's on the thread has something substantive to say about the whole issue. As for me, I'll just watch with interest. |
