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: jpbrody who wrote (16822)	10/20/1998 7:02:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Very interesting take on the patent situation. Thanks. I don't have access to the pleadings, so I don't know what claims have actually been dismissed. It sounds like Ericy has to dismiss its claims on the old patent and bring new ones on the "added to." Wouldn't this delay everything, since the patent office will take some time to approve or disapprove of the amendment? It sounds like, on the surface, you should be correct that "starting" over has a plus but a big minus--certainly for any other type of case, but patent suits are a special animal. Could be a delaying tactic to buy more time, cloud the issues in the suit; could strengthen Ericy case, but only in time. Thanks again, for your enlightening thoughts.

To: jpbrody who wrote (16822)	10/20/1998 7:29:00 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 152472

I re-read the press release and see what you mean, jpbrody. "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." My interpretation of what the foregoing means is that the judge had asked for submissions from the parties for entry by the judge of a pretrial order. The parties set forth in some detail what their allegations are, what facts the parties agree upon, and what is in dispute. Even if a litigant has pleaded something, if it is not put in the pretrial order as in dispute, it isn't in controversy and cannot be "tried." Therefore, the submission works like an amendment to the pleadings, so that the judge can focus on what is really left to be decided. Based on the submissions from the parties, the judge prepares and signs a pretrial order that sets forth the issues in controversy and to be tried.

To: jpbrody who wrote (16822)	10/21/1998 8:31:00 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

jpbrody, JGoren: 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. This is what most likely happened. When the lawsuit started and Ericsson disclosed the 11 patents, most likely Qualcomm found prior art that read on the Patent's claims and filed, within the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a motion for Re-examination. Within the motion, Qualcomm (or whoever filed the motion) cited the prior art. Next, during Re-exam, a Patent Examiner read the prior art and after a few 'actions' with Ericsson's Legal Patent Counsel, it appears that the scope of the claims was narrowed. It still appears that the patents are still valid, however, those patents have a much narrower scope. From the article, it appears that Ericsson admitted that the broad coverage of their patents was, indeed, unpatentable in view of the cited prior art. Any information on which patents were under the Re-examination proceeding at the PTO? dave