InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 11
Posts 5005
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/14/2009

Re: ccraider post# 22262

Wednesday, 04/26/2017 10:51:47 AM

Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:51:47 AM

Post# of 23274
There were 2 parts to the claims construction that PTSC wanted changed because they were determined by PTSC to be fatal to their case. They got 1 changed to what they wanted but:

"and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.”

was NOT changed by the appeals court. That is why the appeals court said the minor modification to the claims construction "likely would not effect the outcome of the case". All PLLs contained in the defendants chips use crystals to set or "fix" the on chip frequency at a certain range.

The judge and current anti patent troll political atmosphere wants this case gone and all the judge has to do is agree with the new stipulation to non infringement I expect the defendants to file.

At any rate a trial and "win" would be years off even under the best of circumstances and that "win" would be for no more the $1.8 million PTSC got from the HTC trial AND it would be appealed so you are looking at YEARS. Companies are simply refusing to be extorted by patent trolls and are fighting on principle to the end. In my opinion.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CPMV News