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 : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hal Campbell who wrote (3340)	9/3/1998 1:58:00 AM
From: flickerful	Respond to of 17679

in case anyone has forgotten the narrow technical basis for mitsubishi's soon to be reviewed "victory". [below is an early opinion, before the last appeal] Upon Construing Patent Claims, Court Denies Motions For Summary Judgment Finally, in Ampex Corp. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., C.A. No. 95-582-RRM, McKelvie, J. (D. Del. Mar. 14, 1997), the Court, after setting forth its construction of one of the patents-in-suit, denied Mitsubishi's motions for summary judgment of non-infringement (literal and under the doctrine of equivalents) and prosecution history estoppel. The Court held that Ampex demonstrated a genuine issue of fact as to whether Mitsubishi's PIP televisions literally infringe a claim of Ampex's patent. As for the doctrine of equivalents, the Court, citing Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chem. Co., 117 S. Ct. 1040 (1997), concluded that genuine issues of fact existed regarding non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because those issues existed as to literal infringement. Op. at 27-28. Similarly, Mitsubishi's motion for summary judgment on the basis of prosecution history estoppel failed because of an unresolved issue of fact. However, the Court stated that Mitsubishi had appeared to meet an important test for the application of prosecution history estoppel, that the "patentee's assertions to the PTO must be unmistakable and clear." Op. at 28 (citing Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). ÿ