Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (4021)	2/19/2000 11:10:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Thanks CB. Here's more for you to decode for us. <g> And just as three minds are deemed better than one in deciding appeals, four minds may often be better than three when a complex claim construction is at issue. Thanks to Brokentrade we have a digitized copy of IDC's Markman brief...... By contrast, Ericsson appears to focus on what the claims do not cover, rather than what they mean. Message 12774523 ....and a summary of Ericsson's response: Ericsson summarizes their argument as follows. They claim that the disagreements between the parties fall into four distinct areas, the first three of which involve the construction of 'means-plus-function' elements.... First, InterDigital routinely ignores claim language defining portions of the recited functions. Second, IDC ignores necessary components of the structure described in the patents for performing the recited functions. Third, IDC seeks to have the Special Master rule on structural 'equivalents thereof' under 35USC 112, par 6. Ericsson believes that the question of structural 'equivalents' is one for the jury and not a proper subject for consideration by the Special Master. Finally, InterDigital's claim construction analysis and experts contradict and ignore the 15 years of prosecution history before the PTO in which IDC's lawyers made numerous representations about what claim terms mean. In Appendix B Ericsson sets forth the prosecution histories. ragingbull.com How I understand the complexity of this case relates to the following: 1) Motorola base stations work with Motorola and Ericsson handsets. 2) Ericsson base stations work with Ericsson and Motorola handsets. The 1995 Motorola case did not include a Markman proceeding and ultimately involved 24 representative claims from 251 claims in 4 IDC TDMA patents that the jury decided in Motorola's favor. The JMOL reinstated 3 claims in IDC's favor but upheld the 21 representative claims decided by the jury. Judge Sander's 5/99 denial of Ericsson's Partial Motion for Summary Judgement contains a highly readable background of the Motorola case: Among the issues litigated at the trial in the Motorola lawsuit was whether Motorola was liable for contributory infringement by cellular phone users or cellular system operators who used Motorola United States Digital Cellular ('USDC') subscriber units' i.e, Motorola cellular telephones along with base stations and switching equipment manufactured by Ericsson ragingbull.com What remains to be seen is how the Markman hearing will further reduce the number of patent claims to be presented to the jury in the Ericsson case. Question: Structural equivalents are part of claim construction which is a question of law, right? The Federal Circuit Reinterprets the Chiuminatta Decision (6/99) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that the determination of structural equivalents when deciding literal infringement under 35 U.S.C. 112, 6 hinges upon the "overall structure" disclosed, not the individual components within that structure Message 12880514 All in all, what anyone can really strive for in any patent case, it seems, is a reasonable basis for optimism or pessimism. And that's an issue any investor ultimately has to decide for himself or herself regarding the TDMA opportunity for a company like IDC which has highly visible TDMA and CDMA opportunities.