Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I believe it follows the intent of the patent. In just about all descriptions the inventor was talking about a range and if you don't take a few words out of context, it reads as Matthews pointed out. There is nowhere in the patent that mentions a distance calculation is needed. The industry provides a distance measurement to let everyone know and to satisfy FCC requirements. What you have to do is plug in the definition and read the patent as Matthews has done. Tmob wants Calypso to come up with a specific number. Tmob argued that the definition by the court was in fact something they proposed, but if you read what definition they actually proposed, it isn't anything like what the judge proposed.
This is what Tmob proposed :A predetermined, fixed distance existing between the wireless communication device and the computer facility.
This requires one to make a calculation to ascertain whether or not you are at the specified fixed distance.
This is what the judge proposed: a predetermined, maximum distance existing between the wireless device and the computer facility.
More of a range definition. So when you plug it into the actual claims you get what Matthews says.
And using Matthews example with the actual claim you get :Using Claim 11 as an example, infringement will require, in addition to the previously recited elements, “automatically switching messaging communication with said wireless communication device between the Internet and the over-the-air network dependent at least on said wireless communication device being inside or outside said [predetermined, maximum distance existing between the wireless communication device and the computer facility] relative to the Internet access facility.”
According to Sirh notes there was some discussion on this and the judge even pointed out that the way Tmob wanted to define it, you would be excluding bluetooth. Tmob is hoping to make it a narrowly defined situation.
Tmob has been trying to place limits on the patent by using a fixed point definition. I guess they figure if you say it enough it might stick. Sorry.
You probably don't given what you are talking about. The equipment usually comes with specifications that would give you the information you need.
Most likely.
Tmob is still trying to limit the predetermined definition to a fixed point.I imagine the judge will have to eventually come down with a more refined definition that Tmob will understand. Now that both sides have addressed the issue, we should see a decision on the motions and a final on the Markman shortly. This is the only reasonable reason to explain why we haven't seen the final yet. I don't think the judge will grant Tmob's motions. Calypso needs to keep in mind that you can't get signal strength or quality without using distance in the formula. The equipment manufactuers are required to provide distance figures to the FCC. Even if the judge doesn't further clarify, the jury might have the chance.
Tmob is still trying to limit the predetermined parameter to a fixed distance, which is clearly not what was intended. We had quite the discussion on this predetermined distance idea a few weeks ago. We knew Tmob would try to say they were not using a distance. It is common knowledge among the computer community that wifi only covers a certain maximum distance and in fact the FCC has requirements regarding these technologies and they are widely known. Just look at any box with computer equipment and you'll see something regarding compliance with FCC regulations. I applaud Calypso's legal team for catching Tmob's attempt at redefinition, including their attempt at re-writing the Markman provisional definitions regarding predetermined vicinity etc. Calypso's attorneys rightly stated the correct definition. Let's get on to the trial. We'll be lucky to see anything from here on out. If I can see through this smoke screen so can a jury.
Thanks for posting. I looked this afternoon and nothing new had been filed. I was anticipating several filings. As I said earlier there will be a complete lockdown of information before we know it. All we will see is one of the parties filed some sealed motion or document. I guess it really doesn't matter as long as the case keeps progressing.
In regard to these new filings, I don't think Tmob has a chance of getting the summary judgment on invalidity or whatever. This case has to go to trial because there are too many factors that a jury must decide. Tmob is trying to say the Andrew project anticipated the 923, which I don't think it did. Well why didn't they file for a patent ? You can't invalidate a patent very easily with information that is not part of a patent.
Tmob has filed all the textbook motions etc. Motion to dismiss, invalidity, patent isn't patentable or whatever. Once they realize these standard approaches don't work, they might get back to the crux of the case. And that will be how to tell the jury Tmob doesn't and didn' t infringe. I don't think they want this before a jury. It talks like a duck and walks like a duck. Guess what?
Reading through the calypso experts opinion, the bottom line was this:
117. T-Mobile infringes claims 1-5, 6-9, 11-15, 16-23, and 24-25 of the ‘923 patent.
There are 30 claims in the patent, Tmob only has to infringe on one. According to,Calypso's expert Tmob infringes on 24 claims. That's 23 more than Calypso needs. No wonder Tmob is throwing everything at this case hoping something will stick. We can expect all kinds of special hearings, motions and other filings, including sealed documents. Things should start heating up within the next month.
The next docket dates:
December 14, 2012
*File Dispositive Motions or Motions to Strike Expert Testimony (including Daubert Motions)
No dispositive motion or motion to strike expert testimony (including a Daubert motion) may be filed after this date without leave of the Court.
December 10, 2012
Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery
I have to agree this current situation is rather baffling. I don't suspect anything out of line, but at this point in the case the final is not that important. We will see it sometime within the next 3 months. What you have to remember is this is Calypso and surprises are the only thing we can expect. It was pretty easy to predict former management, but now with a judge thrown in the mix, it is almost impossible. What we do know from the various documents filed recently is that the receiver has been more engaged than most people thought. The docket dates set in semi-permanent stone are coming up fast and furious. With the holidays mixed in these attorneys are going to be real busy and the trial will be here before we know it. It's going to be a real slugfest at the end, with Tmob trying desparetly trying to get this case thrown out any way they can. Don't think the recent award by a jury in this court (different judge) against Apple for $368 million hasn't gotten their attention.
I have a hard time believing Tmob would settle at this stage of the game. I don't see them offering $500 million right now and the Daic parties want mo money. Imo.
Figured this was coming. We can expect more of the same as the case gets closer to the trial date. A total blackout more than likely.
It is my understanding that YES it is relevant to any other trials. They don't like to reinvent the wheel if they don't have to.
3 months 2 weeks 4 days till trial. Maybe the attorneys will address the real issue here sooner or later. Did Tmob infringe the 923. I'm hoping to see a final Markman ruling before the trial.
It would make more sense if the judge were waiting for a settlement, that he would issue the final Markman, which would put more pressure on Tmob. The case is still proceeding if you look at the documents that are being filed in the court. One would expect these filings to stop if a settlement was seriously being considered. I doubt Tmob is offerding a huge settlement amount. They probably still think they can win by papering the court with endless motions etc. I have no idea what is taking the judge so long, except that in the past some of the Markman's took several months. It only becomes critical once the trial begins.
I don't care who says what as long as this case stays on schedule. Tmob was complaining about the stay lasting two years. WELL WHY DIDN'T THEY FILE SOMETHING WITH THE COURT DURING THAT TIME. Because they were hoping Calypso would self-destruct and go away. Since that didn't happen they are now claiming Calypso abandoned the case. I DON'T THINK SO, GAME ON. The filings do show a rather confrontational relationship, which is what I would expect of anyone looking to recover a billion dollars.
So what are you assuming might be going on ?
No final Markman yet today. 3 months 2 weeks 5 days till trial. Will we get a final or has it already been issued and it just won't be posted on the court site. Maybe they posted it under a different case number.
Maybe he was tired of having that short window to submit the final Markman and decided to create another record date. It doesn't really make sense that he could issue the preliminary Markman in one day and then take this long to get the final out. My response is ???????????
HMMMM, no final Markman documents yet. Maybe by the time the trial gets here we'll see them.
I agree and wouldn't completely discard the possibility. I know what the judge said, but that was based on a specific set of circumstances. Money would and could change the scenario. Nothing is ever written in stone when money is involved.
3 months 3 weeks till March trial.
A Tyler Texas jury just awarded VHC $368 million in a patent case against Apple. Same court, different judge, Calypso has their case in. Let's hope we get the same jury.
11/02/2012 Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is GRANTED pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for T-Mobile USA, Inc. to 12/10/2012. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( sm, ) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
This was from the new 2012 case.
If they find infringement on only one claim in the patent, then they have infringed the patent.
If you read the patent, it lays out 30 claims of which all of those definitions were a part of. In order to prove infringement only one of those 30 claims needs to be infringed, not the definitions. They are arguing the distance definition because that definition is included in all of the 30 claims. They are saying they don't use distance and like we've mentioned before, you can't compute anything like signal strength without using distance. This is exactly the plan we mentioned tmob would take.. Call it something else and hope nobody knows what you're talking about.
No big surprise on this summary judgment motion. Tmob is hoping something will stick. As we discussed here previously, they are saying they use signal strenght not distance. I think everybody remembers the recent discusion on that topic. Distance is integral to determining signal strength. So now Tmob is using the wireless Andrew information as prior art, but it was not before the USPTO and tmob even says so. This is like saying I thought of the idea, but decided not to patent it and you can't use it either because I thought of it. That's not how it works. You file a patent if you think of the idea, then you can say it is prior art.
This comes as no surprise. He hasn' t been a player for a while. My countdown calendar says 4months 3 days to court.
I hope someone keeps close check on the Fed Court this week. There should be a bunch of activity this week.
One thing we do know is that sooner or later it will surface. And the more time that passes the closer we get.
Not sure what would be happening that would deter the judge from issuing his final other than a tight court schedule.
I would say it might be prudent for people to let rest any information that could be used against Calypso by posting on this board. At this stage of the game we do not want to give anyone information that could potentially be used against our interests, even if we don't have any information. That means any information related to who, what, where, when or how, calypso or the daic parties did anything.It would be better to refrain from commenting on any of the most recent filings. What we want to know is where do we stand with the Markman and are the court dates getting met so that this case can end in March 2013. Just a thought.
A new target?
AT&T has also moved aggressively in this space. In November 2008, the service provide purchased Wayport, a Wi-Fi hotspot and back office supplier, for $275 million. Since that time, the carrier has been weaving Wayport's 20,000 hotspots into its cellular network. In fact, AT&T smartphones support automatic authentication at the firm's AT&T Wi-Fi hotspots, so users can switch from one Wireless Network to the other without having to go through a series of prompts. Individuals with Apple, HTC, LG, and Samsung phones can access AT&T's Wi-Fi service.
Source:http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=16817&news=Wi-Fi+WiFi+3G+Cell+Phone
I think the judge was waiting until the mediation conference was over before he finishes his formal Markman. Now that date is past, we should see it soon. I like the fact that we are basically staying on schedule. When we reach Feb, the dates set out in the docket supposedly can't be changed. I don't think Tmob will be willing to settle this for anywhere near the amount the expert has defined. I frankly hope they go all the way through the trial.
Thanks for your efforts. Yes that was A large bunch of documents.
Post 58805
I could be happy with $10 pps, but my greedy a$$ says I want more.
It's 300 million. Look for bacatcha post earlier.
I believe you could be correct. The cpa guys were merely looking at what they could reasonably call direct expenses. With the tech expert saying he believes they infringed 24 of 30 claims, that is in itself huge. Of course both sides have a story to tell, but it's interesting that so far Tmob is not allowing the necessary documents to be given to these experts. They are also back to fighting the case with invalidity arguments. I hope the judge will soon put the halt to that idea and move this along. It is the first time we've gotten a glimpse at potential damages and I like what I'm seeing.
My countdown clock says 4 months 1 week to trial. I'm sure we'll see a lot of filings by then.
What's interesting is that Calypso's expert seems to think Tmob infringed 24 of the claims of the patent. Tmob would be considered infringing the patent if only one claim was infringed. So from this experts view, tmob has infringed a majority of the patent claims. There are 30 claims in the patent.
From recent court documents, it appears the inventor Leon, was deposed sometime in Sep 2012. That should be an interesting read. I known folks were wondering about how he would play into the case.