Interdigital Communication(IDCC) 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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC)

IDCC 369.41

-3.0%

Nov 7 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bobby Yellin who started this subject	5/28/2002 4:03:06 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) of 5195

Well, this ruling didn't take long. Expect to see more settlements like Cognos vs Business Objects (today) as a result of this ruling. Festo vs SKKC kinda' stunk up the place during the last few years with the way it gave the metered class (lawyers) more tactical issues to argue ad infinitum. Court upholds patent protections Supreme Court sets aside lower court ruling on disputes between manufacturers and copycat makers. May 28, 2002: 1:26 PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A unanimous Supreme Court Tuesday set aside a ruling on copycat products that critics have charged would have seriously undermined the protections under the nation's patent system. The justices said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in its ruling that reinterpreted a major, long-standing doctrine of patent law in a way that makes it tougher for inventors to prove patent infringement. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the appeals court ignored the Supreme Court's guidance in a 1997 ruling that courts must be cautious before adopting changes that disrupt the settled expectations of the inventing community. At issue was the "doctrine of equivalents," under which a device that is not an exact copy can still be found to infringe a patent if it varies from the patented device only in insubstantial details and is therefore equivalent to it. The appeals court limited the doctrine, ruling that it was not available for any patent claim that a patent applicant or holder had amended during the process of obtaining the patent. The appeals court invoked a doctrine known as "prosecution history estoppel," a removal of protection for any aspect of the patent that was limited or changed during the normal back-and-forth between the applicant and the Patent and Trademark Office. The high court's ruling was a partial victory for Festo Corp., the American subsidiary of a German company, Festo A.G. It has spent more than 13 years wrangling over whether a Japanese competitor, Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., copied its design for a magnetic cylinder used for robotics. The Japanese company, which won before the appeals court, has maintained that its cylinders were not copied from Festo. Festo said the appeals court ruling could affect some of the estimated 1.2 million existing patents. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings to determine whether Festo should prevail. money.cnn.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next