Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting 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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 169.27

-4.8%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Stan who wrote (48557)	11/8/2005 5:29:17 PM
From: saukriver	Read Replies (1) of 197175

An interesting revelation re Nokia suit: During the Q @ A at the London conference this AM it was noted by a Qualcomm spokesman that one of the patents alleged to have been infringed upon by Nokia was actively opposed by Nokia who had tried to get it invalidated, and failed to do, so as the Qualcomm patent was upheld. Nokia can hardly claim innocence in the Qualcomm property rights if this is so. Stan, did Qualcomm mention the context of the review of this patent? Was it a re-examination or interference? I think a re-exam has to be initiated by the patent holder, whereas an interference is a procedure the potential defendant commence. I have long thought such extended reviews in the patent offices poses a risk for the potential defendant because the patent holder can (a) trim its claims to avoid an overly broad reading of the claims beyond what is necessary and (b) that further patent office review, in effect, "turbocharges" the patent by getting a blessing from the patent office that explicitly addresses the would-be defendant's arguments.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next