Infineon did put a lot of prior art exhibits into evidence. But this was for the purpose of invalidating the Rambus patents, (as opposed to the purpose of showing that Infineon didn't infringe), and since they already had Judge Payne rule for prima facie fraud, and that was upheld by a 3 judge appeals court, they concentrated instead on the fraud case.
Bilow, your not being honest here again.
First, a prima facie case of fraud simply means that Infineon has alleged sufficient facts that a jury should hear the issue. The 3 judge appellate court simply confirmed that this was an issue that should go to a jury. It said nothing about whether or not the facts were sufficient to find fraud, just that Infineon alleged sufficient facts for this to be a factual question for the jury to weigh and decide.
Second, Infineon needs every shield they can get to overturn these patents. Their is a good chance (albiet far from certain) that the original Markman ruling will be overturned. As such they need a shield. The fraud shield is hardly perfect. First, it may be overturned on appeal, or it may not. But regardless, there is no guarantee the judge will rule that it estops RMBS from enforcing their patents against Infineon. Because of this Infineon would also want to pursue other avenues of defense to get more shielding to assure an absolute victory. Prior art would no doubt have been the ultimate shield, and by the way, the easiest line of defense to purse. They could have won it outright on summary judgment. Case closed. Rambus in the toilet for an entire industry.
One thing that might be true, and I did state this in my post is that if there is some "file wrapper" elements in the case, this could justify the narrow MArkman interpretation. This would be things like having to use the term "multiplex" to avoid prior art or obviousness. I have heard no such evidence such as this coming from the court, but it doesn't mean it was not given at the Markman hearing.
If so, then the MArkman ruling was proper. Does anyone know if such file wrapper evidence was used at the Markman hearing?
Tinker
Tinker |
