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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (67916)	8/18/2007 4:25:56 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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.

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (67916)	8/18/2007 6:05:46 PM
From: kyungha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197275

I am not a lawyer at all. So, i may be wrong that if original patent was not obvious the subsequent patent/claims with continuation in part should not be obvious either. QCOM said it will appeal H264 video compression case. I think they knew existence of emails and talked about it publically that those emails did not matter. They were sent unsolicited mostly. Q seriously bungled in the litigation not presening those email. Or, just admitting extant of them would have been sufficient to argue against invalidity. I hope I remember things correctly.