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 : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA)
AMPX 12.44-8.4%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Gus who wrote (11)6/19/1997 3:36:00 AM
From: Merlin   of 17679
 
Gus,

Congratulations on your new thread. I hope that out of respect for your significant past contributions the posters on this thread will refrain from from the type of emotional posts that have recently appeared on the old thread. The following is my view of the legal action.

The use of prosecution history estoppel indicates that Ampex has used the doctrine of equivalents to show infringement. The use of the doctrine of equivalents in turn indicates that the claims, in and of themselves, were lacking some element, or were relatively narrow in scope. Based upon the Supreme Court decision, Ampex has the burden of showing that the narrowness of the claims was not a result of prior art.

The odd thing here is that: "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...". It seems that the jury must have referred to the doctrine of equivalents on the verdict form. If the jury did so in error, this would provide the "technicality" that Karen referred to. Since the Supreme Court decision was on 3/3/97, there is an opportunity for confusion.

If Ampex did indeed rely on the doctrine of equivalents I would say that this is more than a "technicality", but not insurmountable. If the doctrine of equivalents is superfluous to their case, then this would be a "technicality".

Regards,

Merlin
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News