Wi-LAN Inc. (T.WIN) 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 : Wi-LAN Inc. (T.WIN)

WILN 1.390

0.0%

Sep 18 5:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: P2V	4/7/2014 10:06:26 PM
	Read Replies (1) of 16863

Patent Claims of Apple Foe Revived by Judge BTW so this is a (revived )Red Herring ?? LOL Message 29466701 (Thanks to posters on the Yahoo BB, where there is much more ) http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/07/66869.htm http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/07/apple.pdf By KEVIN LESSMILLER MARSHALL, Texas (CN) - A jury that cleared Apple of infringement claims improperly found that two claims of a Wi-Lan patent were invalid, a federal judge ruled. U.S. Patent No. RE37,802 "deals with the field of multiple access communications using spread spectrum modulation," according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Wi- Lan claimed in a 2011 lawsuit that Apple infringed on its '802 patent "by using certain industry standards in the field of wireless technology." A jury found in October 2013 that Apple was not infringing and that claims 1 and 10 of Wi-Lan's patent are invalid. The patent has 40 total claims. U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap vacated part of that unanimous verdict Thursday, saying the invalidity finding was not based on enough evidence. "The court is unable to find that the jury's finding as to invalidity of claims 1 and 10 of the '802 patent is supported by substantial evidence," Gilstrap wrote. "Accordingly, the jury's invalidity verdict cannot stand." Apple needed "to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence" but "no evidence was presented of complex multipliers in the prior art," the 16-page opinion states. Claim one of Wi-Lan's patent describes "a transceiver for transmitting a first stream of data symbols," and claim 10 explains "means for receiving a sequence of modulated data symbols." Though Gilstrap vacated the judgment as to the validity of claims 1 and 10, he denied all other aspects of Wi- Lan's motion for judgment as a matter of law. Wi- Lan and Apple are also fighting over patents in San Diego

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next