Hi tinkershaw; Re: "Bilow, you[']r[e] not being honest here again." Personal attack, ignored. If you want to sling insults later, I'd love to, but not right now. (G)
Re: "First, a prima facie case of fraud simply means that Infineon has alleged sufficient facts that a jury should hear the issue."
I think you're right here, but I'm no lawyer. Here's a (purported Fool) lawyer's view, and he thought it was pretty serious: #reply-15498262 In retrospect, his take on it was correct. My take on it is that Rambus has already used up some of their appeal ammunition, I expect the fraud to hang around.
Re: "Second, Infineon needs every shield they can get to overturn these patents." Actually, they only need one, but they'll take as many as they can get. As it was, I'm sure they're very ecstatic with the shields they've got.
Re: "But regardless, there is no guarantee the judge will rule that it estops RMBS from enforcing their patents against Infineon." I think you're very, very, very optimistic here, and I'll send you a reminder notice that the judge did so rule when he does, likely on Monday or Tuesday. Semantically, nothing is guaranteed, LOL.
Re: "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.." First, I doubt that prior art would have been easy, given how restricted the Rambus patents were. But let's go back to your statement that I was responding to:
" Kind of funny if all the major elements of Rambus inventions were created much earlier why the issue of "prior art" has never been put forward at trial nor has lack of novelty or obviousness been an issie." #reply-15817202
My interpretation of your statement is that you were implying that, in fact, that the "major elements of Rambus inventions" were invented by Rambus, and that this fact was not contested at court. In fact, both sides agreed to the opposite of this fact; that the various major elements of Rambus' designs were present in the prior art. If they hadn't been present, Rambus would have patented them without the infamous "multiplexed bus" addition to the claims. Since both parties agreed that Rambus did not have a patent to the major elements, there was simply no reason to show the evidence of this to the jury. In addition, the patents did not include claims for the elements, so there was no reason to show prior art to it. As such, there was no way for Infineon to eliminate Rambus' patents that way. Let me reiterate: The exhibits were prior art to the elements of Rambus' invention, not to Rambus' invention.
My guesses for why Infineon put prior art of the elements of Rambus' inventions into the evidence includes the following: (1) Infineon wanted to be able to prove to the jury that Rambus hadn't invented the individual elements. (2) Infineon wanted to show to the judge that Rambus didn't invent the individual elements. (3) Infineon wanted to show that there was a reason that Rambus' original patent included the "multiplexed bus limitation. (4) Infineon's lawyers were paid by the hour, LOL.
Re: " 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?"
I'm sort of surprised you could make this statement. If you read the Markman memo, it's clear that the file wrappers were hardly mentioned. The ruling came down to the claim and specification language. Heck, I'll retype a couple pages, I'm fast (citations omitted, my emphasis):
III. The Extrinsic Evidence Generally: The Experts
The claim construction here has been accomplished largely without resort to extrinsic expert evidence, notwithstanding that the parties presented expert testimony addressing each disputed term. Having reviewed that testimony, the Court found it useful mostly in understanding the technical terminology other than the disputed terms as that terminology is used in the claims and specifications.
As outlined in the substantive discussion of each term construed, Rambus pressed constructions that generally found little, if any, support in the claim language or the specification, depending in significant part upon the expert testimony of Dr. Huber whose testimony was generally at odds with the statements made by the inventors in the claims and specification. Thus, his extrinsic evidence had to be substantially disregarded as contradictory of the extrinsic evidence. Also, it was difficult to credit Dr. Huber's testimony on disputed terms because it reflected the general, and disturbing, tendency of Rambus to distance its current constructions from what the inventors said in making the claims and explaining the inventions in the specification, and, in so doing, to use the claim construction process to broaden claims, rather clearly not made in the intrinsic evidence.
The record here, and the approach to claim construction taken by Rambus, illustrate the wisdom and importance of the rules of law that establish a hierarchal distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. On the other hand, the testimony of Mr. Joseph McAlexander, the expert offered by Infineon, was quite helpful and very credible because it was tethered closely to the intrinsic evidence and was not contradictory of the claim language or the specification. Notwithstanding that his testimony was reliable and informative it was ultimately not essential except as specifically cited in the construction. (pages 75-76)
rambusite.com
-- Carl |
