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.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : Fonar - Where is it going?
FONR 14.71-1.0%Nov 5 3:57 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: James L. Fleckenstein who wrote (10673)8/5/1998 2:20:00 AM
From: Michelino  Read Replies (2) of 19354
 
At a follow-up, it appears that the entire Circuit Court decision itself is at:
ba-iplaw.inter.net

Interesting excerpts from the Circuit Court of Appeals include, as to Dr Damadian's patent for Cancer Detection using NMR imaging under the title 'Direct Infringement of the '832 Patent'

"We agree with Fonar that the jury's verdict finding
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was supported by
substantial evidence...There was also evidence presented that GE's machines
performed an equivalent to step (b) of claim 1. GE's machines
used a T1-weighted image and a T2-weighted image for detecting
cancer. A T1-weighted image was a function of T1 and machine
parameters; a T2-weighted image was a function of T2 and the
machine parameters. There was testimony that the T1- and T2-
weighted images were primarily controlled by T1 and T2
respectively. In particular, Dr. Damadian testified that a T1
image was controlled by the T1 relaxation time. Even Dr.
Mezrich, GE's expert witness, agreed that T1- and T2-weighted
images were images whose contrast was primarily determined by
differences in T1 and T2. In its reference manual, GE stated
that T1-weighted images "rely heavily on T1 relaxation
information." This evidence provided a showing that GE's use of
T1- and T2-weighted images were essentially controlled by the
values of T1 and T2 and were thus an insubstantial difference
from the use of T1 and T2 values as required by step (b) of claim1."

Of course regarding the MAO patent, the court also states

"There was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding
that the method claims were infringed."

and, eventually,

".We agree with Fonar that the jury's award of reasonable
royalty damages was also supported by substantial evidence."


Now who was it again that said that was not a patent case?

Regards,
Michael
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News