SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin
RMBS 94.82+2.7%Nov 26 3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tinkershaw who wrote (73202)5/18/2001 3:16:16 AM
From: The Prophet  Read Replies (1) of 93625
 
Just to clarify re this series of posts, the appellate court did not make any specific finding of fraud. Rather, the court of appeals simply determined not to grant an interlocutory writ, preventing discovery on an issue which the judge found could lead to admissible evidence of fraud.

Second, a finding of fraud by the jury in this context was a mixed question of fact and law. If, for example, the court of appeals finds that it is legally permissible to amend claims to include inventions covered by the original specification in the original patent, then it would difficult to support a legal conclusion of fraud, even if the jury purported to make a factual finding to that effect.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News