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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ruffian who wrote (16814)	10/20/1998 3:55:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Ericy caves in on 5 of 8 patent claims in the Marshall, Texas lawsuit; dismisses 3 more of them. I predict a cross-licensing agreement on terms very favorable to Qcom shortly. The lies that Ericy has perpetrated in the media for the past two years make it virtually impossible for Ericy to try the suit to a federal judge; I sure wouldn't want to be representing a client who engaged in a campaign of intentional disinformation who must now testify under oath in a court of law. This means revenues 2-3 times what previously predicted if ETSI standards have convergence. Ericy's position before standards board must be cut tremendously. Ericsson Drops Three 'Essential' Patents from Lawsuit Against QUALCOMM and Surrenders Two Others - Ericsson's Actions Further Undercut Ericsson's Claim to Hold Essential Patents for CDMA Standards - SAN DIEGO, Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- QUALCOMM Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM - news) today announced that Ericsson, Inc. and its Swedish parent Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson have dismissed with prejudice all claims under three of the patents asserted against QUALCOMM in the litigation brought by Ericsson in Marshall, Texas. In a further development, Ericsson, in papers filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, also admitted the invalidity of the claims of two other patents asserted against QUALCOMM in the lawsuit, and surrendered those patents. All five patents are among the eight patents that, beginning in December 1995, Ericsson repeatedly told the telecommunications industry were ''blocking'' patents or were ''essential'' to make or use cellular products compliant with IS-95 and other cdmaOne(TM) standards. In December 1995, Ericsson represented to the Telecommunications Industry Association and others that it held eight allegedly essential patents for IS-95. QUALCOMM challenged Ericsson's representation, and Ericsson filed a patent infringement lawsuit against QUALCOMM in Marshall, Texas in September 1996, eventually bringing a total of 11 patents into the case. QUALCOMM counterclaimed against Ericsson for unfair competition, stating in court filings that ''Ericsson has knowingly made false and unfounded claims, including the assertion that it owns or controls patents that are 'essential' to the manufacture, use or sale of products that implement the IS-95 standard'' with the ''inten[t] that its false claims ... would have an anticompetitive effect and injure QUALCOMM's business.'' Ericsson's dismissal or surrender of the majority of the supposedly essential patents substantiates QUALCOMM's charge that Ericsson deliberately misled the industry. ''The IS-95 standard has not changed and Ericsson's patents have not changed since Ericsson first publicly contended that these five patents were essential to IS-95. In light of those facts, Ericsson's recent actions and admissions can only confirm QUALCOMM's complaint that Ericsson wrongfully and falsely claimed essential patents,'' said Louis Lupin, QUALCOMM's senior vice president and proprietary rights counsel. ''That Ericsson waited more than two years to dismiss these meritless claims sheds light on its motives. These events show that Ericsson's statements to the industry with respect to its CDMA patent position are not believable.'' Unlike QUALCOMM, whose CDMA patent position has been accepted by more than 55 major telecommunications companies that have entered into royalty-bearing licenses with QUALCOMM, Ericsson has yet to announce a single royalty-bearing license under any of Ericsson's alleged CDMA patents for any CDMA standard. Moreover, Ericsson has not identified any essential patents it claims to hold with respect to any proposed third generation CDMA standard, including the W-CDMA proposal it has promoted in Europe, Japan and elsewhere, despite specific requests to do so from standards-setting bodies. Consequently, it is not surprising that notwithstanding Ericsson's threatened and actual litigation against CDMA equipment manufacturers, Ericsson's claims to hold essential CDMA patents have not been accepted. Ericsson had been contending in the Texas lawsuit that the three dismissed patents, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,148,485, 5,239,557, and 5,430,760, covered certain features of IS-95 compatible products sold by QUALCOMM, and that the two surrendered patents, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,109,528 and 5,327,577, covered ''soft handoff'' in accordance with IS-95. Ericsson dropped the three patents from the lawsuit shortly before Ericsson was due to disclose in court proceedings its interpretation of the meaning and scope of the allegedly infringed claims and several months before the scheduled trial date in February 1999. Ericsson's surrender of the other two patents and admissions of invalidity were made during reissue proceedings before the United States Patent Office in which Ericsson is applying for new claims which it argues avoid the invalidity problems of the surrendered claims. To date, Ericsson has not dismissed its claims against QUALCOMM under the surrendered patents in the Texas litigation.

To: Ruffian who wrote (16814)	10/20/1998 3:57:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

To Michael Piturro: Beats even a world series story ! :-) Does anyone think the trial scheduled for Feb 1999 will actually take place? Would seem that Ericy stands to lose on the charge of deliberate attempts to damage the Q let alone the more narrow question of patents themselves. Not a rosy prospect for Ericy, no? And the threats re W CDMA seem a bit empty in view of this. But maybe the three patents that Ericy still claims re CDMA are "blocking" patents. Their "blocking" strength does seem a little weak though since none of the 51 companies who have licensed the Q's patents have felt it necessary to license Ericy's. Thanks for drawing this to the thread's attention Mike. Chaz PS And thanks to JGoren for the comments I have just read so edited this post. Agree Ericy is very vulnerable re trashing the Q. No judge is predictable, but not a good position for Ericy to be in inside a courtroom. Assume Ericy has some intelligent lawyers and that management is just stubborn not stupid, so settlement before trial leaps to the eye. But unfortunately, to date Ericy's track record for common sense is suspect to say the least.