To severely summarize Count Bugula's summary.
At question in the case is the # of clocks Mitsubishi used in their PIP application. One clock and they infringe. Elements 2 ( writing data) and 3 ( reading) are central to the decision. The jury found literal infringement on 2. They checked neither yes or no on literal infringement on 3, but checked yes on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and so just from that the judge assumed they had found Mitsubishi to use 2 clocks. That assumption left AXC open, in the judges opinion, to prosecution history estoppel - and he threw out the verdict.
His assumption from an unchecked box, even to a legal illiterate like myself, seems quite an odd jump in logic ......particularly in light of the fact that the judge failed to inform the jury that a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents , in any element, was equivalent to a finding that Mitsubishi used 2 clocks. It seems more logical to assume that because they found literal infringement in element #2, they indeed determined that Mitsubishi used one clock only.
The Count guesses 50% chance for jury decision reinstatement. 30% new trial to specifically determine # of clocks used in element 3. 20% chance for verdict to be upheld. From what he wrote, it seems to me that the grey area is substantial, and odds favor a new trial. ( mymymy...just what we need)
It'll be interesting to see.
As an aside, it would seem to my untutored eye that Ampex would actually have been better off in the case if the jury had found no infringement at all in element 3 - and thus voted No on that element, rather than leaving the literal infringement box unchecked either way and finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Their clearly intended indirect support for AXC in element 3 was AXC's downfall ( in the eyes of Judge McKelvie).
Again, this is serious David versus Goliath stuff. Mitsubishi is the largest company in the world and has annual revenues well in excess of , for one example, Sweden's GNP.
My question for any legal or technical expert who might like to comment ..... is it possible for only one clock to be used for writing and 2 for reading ....and if that is the case is not infringement just in the writing infringement all the same? |
