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 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bobby Yellin who started this subject	10/31/2002 5:43:54 PM
From: Gus	of 5195

How the Jury voted (From jaykayjones at RB). The jury decision is interesting in light of the recent US Supreme Court ruling in Festo vs SKKKC (May 2002) which sought to strike a better balance between overly expansive applications and overly restrictive applications of the Doctrine of Equivalents, with the clear burden of proof on the patent owner to prove the applicability of the DOE. They found that Ericsson was guilty of literal infringement on Claims 1 and 33 of the '338 patent, and infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents on Claims 2 and 45. Then they unanimously agreed that Ericsson was also guilty of willful infringement of those claims. Jury Verdict Questionnaire (partial) ragingbull.lycos.com (JKJ note: there is only one answer sheet and the jury's answers have to be unanimous. I obtained the text of these questions in early October and, although the Judge read out the specific questions for the jury, I may have missed one or two details when she changed the sequence numbers). “In answering these questions, you are to follow all of the instructions I have given you above. You may have to return to the instructions frequently as you answer these questions. *1. Did Harris prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ericsson literally infringed the listed claims of the ‘338 patent? Answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as to each claim.* Claim 1 YES Claim 2 NO Claim 33 YES Claim 45 NO Proceed to Question 2 only if you have answered ‘No’ as to any of the above claims. Otherwise proceed to Question 3. 2. Did Harris prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ericsson infringed the listed claims of the ‘338 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? Answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as to each claim. Claim 1 - Claim 2 YES Claim 33 - Claim 45 YES 3. Did Harris prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ericsson willfully infringed the listed claims of the ‘338 patent? Answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as to each claim as to which you have answered ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in Q1 or Q2. Claim 1 _______ Claim 2 _______ Claim 33 ______ Claim 45 ______ ragingbull.lycos.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next