Ampex Corporation (AEXCA) 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 : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA)

AMPX 12.44

-8.4%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: ACV who wrote (10)	6/18/1997 9:55:00 PM
From: Gus	of 17679

Thanks, ACV. The technicality that you were referring to is this... "The judge ruled that the manner in which the jury had completed its verdict form subjected Ampex's charge of infringement to the defense of prosecution history estoppel, based on which he entered judgment on behalf of Mitsubishi. Ampex is planning to appeal this judgment or to move for a retrial. ...and Ampex's attempt to salvage some good.... An Ampex representative said: "We are disappointed that the court felt constrained to rule against us on the estoppel issue, but we are gratified that the rulings in this case support Ampex's contentions that, although many of our patents relating to video signal processing resulted from inventions in video recorders and related electronics, these patents are equally applicable to other products, such as televisions, where the inventions may be in use today." Okay, what is prosecution history estoppel? Prosecution history estoppel is an affirmative defense to a charge of infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents. It bars recapture by the patentee of scope that was surrendered in order to obtain allowance of the claims. Specifically, a patentee is estopped from asserting that an accused product or process is equivalent to the claimed invention "when a change of claim scope is made in order to overcome an examiner's rejection based on prior art."6 ....best understood within the proper context in this article... ljextra.com Always something in Ampexland, eh? What to make of this? A lot of us would like to know. Anybody?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next