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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Fonar - Where is it going? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James L. Fleckenstein who wrote (10673)	8/5/1998 12:34:00 AM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19354

That's because the talk about it not being a patent case and that no patents were found to be infringed, with only a ruling by a 'non-technical' jury, yadayadaya is nonsense. Take a look of the site that Patti just pointed to, it contains a link "Digests of Patent Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" for recent years and of course includes 1997, which, of course, contains information on the Fonar VS GE case. fr.com (This being a copyrighted summary, I cannot copy it here.) Jim, please read this in its entirety and tell us whether you think that all three decisions, (the initial jury trial, the district court decision and the federal circuit court) had a finding of infringment of a Fonar patent: For example, here is the summary for the reinstatement of the patent for cancer detection at this third stage:"Lastly, reinstating the jury verdict of infringement of the second patent, the Federal Circuit held that infringement was established "at least equivalently by the insubstantial difference, if any, between standard values [of T1 and T2] required by the limitation and the [infringer's] compiled values [published in an article by its own scientists.]" You see, this patent was the ONLY one of the two patent infringments overturned by the district court and only "for the failure to establish the existence of standard T1 and T2 values" You might compare this with Spinshooter's story as why the district court was overturned on this matter. At all three levels the patent for MAO was upheld and GE is consistently referred to as the "infringer". Apparently GE maintained that Fonar should not have been given this patent without revealing the detailed source code behind the algorithms but "The Federal Circuit affirmed as to validity, holding that the best mode requirement for the first patent was satisfied by a description of the functions of software, and that disclosure of the actual computer code was not necessary..." Overturned by the district court and affirmed by the circuit court was the initial decision that "found inducement of infringement of the first patent". In making these decisions both higher courts seem as technically adept as would be expected. And there is no indication at this site that Fonar went outside of normal channels in the defense of its intellectual property rights. Regards, Michael

To: James L. Fleckenstein who wrote (10673)	8/5/1998 2:20:00 AM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to 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