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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 159.42-1.2%Jan 16 3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (67916)8/18/2007 4:25:56 PM
From: rkral  Read Replies (1) of 197275
 
"rkral: Did the KSR v. Teleflex decision even involve a continuation patent?

Art: Yes it did. KSR had a patent [...] Teleflex had a patent ..."

Art, two companies owning two patents is not an example of a continuation patent. The continuation patent and the parent patent would instead be owned by one company.

"Why wouldn't [edit: the ExxonMobil v. Unocal] case be material in a QCOM appeal on the video compression case? I'm not a lawyer here. All I do is read the stuff and try to understand it as best as I can."

I don't know, but as before, I think discussing a prior case in the telecommunications or electronics industry would be more relevant. (Actually, it would be a considerably more relevant if at least one of us was a patent lawyer. :-))) All I can think of is the Rambus case, but I really don't want to go there.
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