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.
Nice job taking down the countdown clock. Leaves space for the reversal from the court.
The judge forced the Tmob attorney into agreeing with her when he attempted to disregard the subject. He tried to skirt the issue, which she didn't allow.The definition of comprise is what Calypso's attorney was wanting.
IMHO
That non-disclosure is a nail in the coffin.
Yes and from what you determined, every day is positive. I find it interesting the receiver would even consider letting it go forward unless he felt there was some possibility of a win. I would guess the Daic parties are driving the effort. They do have a huge amount to gain and fighting 8 years for nothing don't sit well with anybody.
I'm just trying to call it like I see it and I think Tmob might be in trouble. You can bet they will try to settle if this gets sent back for trial. They will lose in court with a jury. It's just that simple. A jury will understand the patent diagrams and will overlook the legal mumbo jumbo.
Calypso's brief was very well written. Tmob and the judge both mixed up the Calypso patent issued in 2004 with the one issued 5 years later, then tried to say there was prior art, even though it didn't negate Calypso's patent. The question the judge asked, if signal strength was in the Aho patent and Tmobs attorney tried to use Calypso's expert as justification for his point, for which he got reamed out. He finally submitted that signal strength was not in the Aho patent. I think the judges will see the inadequacies and misrepresentations. I don't recall a specific instance of Juren being taken to task, only one situation where the judge corrected Juren about something Tmob said. I would not exclude the Doctrine of Equivalents. If you go through the district judges Recommendation you see various points at which he could have ruled more favorably for Calypso, but for some unknown reason didn't.
What she said was comprising was a well defined term and ought to be given it's well defined meaning. She went on to say not sure if it will make a difference. I recall your reference to her saying that's what I was hoping you'd say, but to me that means she wanted him to get to his point as to why he believed that point.
All of this is pretty subjective and doesn't mean a hill of beans, but the judge seemed to me to say, Look the lower court judge made a mistake here and we're going to evaluate it within the terms of the well defined definition. That may not change the outcome of the case, however, she seemed to hedge in saying, not sure if it makes a difference.
Just a thought.
MY OPINION ONLY.
Haven't seen anything yet on an opinion
Calypso wins a reversal to lower court and Summary Judgment is reversed. Trial date to be determined.
Interesting details, reading out embodiment, comprising, doctrine of equivalents, Piconet definition, good explanation of patent operation figure 2.
Appropriate definition from Appeal Court will read pre-established vicinity range is an area within which two transceivers can communicate such as but not limited to bluetooth or wifi.
Tmob failure to get a points across in describing Aho patent referencing GPS and how Signal Strength was not listed in Aho. Tmob got shot down on that point. Got shot down on comprising, big time.
Judges will take into consideration this time an opinion more favorable to patentee, as should have been done in lower court.
.
I think you are correct. The second and third times I listened, the more it sounded better for Juren. He hit most of the points that needed to be made. I also agree the opposing counsel had nothing new to add and kept pronouncing inaccuracies such as the definition of a Piconet,as was specifically pointed out by Juren at the end. I don't think there is any question that the definition of Compromising was another on Juren's side. I would say Juren did about as good as we could expect. I don't know if you caught the comment and question to Tmob about Doctrine of Equivalents. This same court has made rulings on this basis and they were favorable to the patentee. Time will tell. GLTA
I think Calypso's side came off pretty good. I don't recall any instance of the judge hammering him on any points,. Whether that makes any difference in the final outcome ??????? Now I have to look up Comprising again.
I found it interesting the judge asked a question of the Tmob attorney about the Doctrine of Equivalents, which I mentioned a few posts ago. Of course Tmob's attorney said it did not apply. The judge must have also thought the Doctrine of Equivalents might just apply. Comprising will go our way, I think that was clear. What impact this will have is unclear to me right now. I think Calypso's attorney used his time well and stuck to the points that needed addressing.
Thanks for attending. I listened to the argument. Sometimes it's helpful to have a pair of eyes to see the demeanor of folks involved. My take on it is that Juren did pretty well sticking to the main points. I was glad to see he challenged Tmobs definition of Piconet. I think that is a major point in understanding the fact that, NO Calypso's patent was not talking about a specific distance. My question to them would be also, if we are talking about a piconet having some distances listed, how can it possibly represent a maximum because it clearly showed a range, besides the fact the patent didn't define a piconet as Tmob was trying to claim. I think Juren won the point on the definition of comprising, without a doubt.The judge clearly saw that as an error by the lower court. Juren seen to present what was needed to understand the predetermined vicinity range. I don't think Tmob presented anything new or made any points that were not in their brief. I didn't really see any points that Tmob made that stood out where I could clearly say, wow they really nailed it. As I suspected, it is difficult to formulate an opinion based on listening to the judges questions. I do agree the one judge seemed to be helping out the Tmob attorney just a bit, but that may have been her way of seeking clarification. All in all, I think Calypso has a strong Brief and Juren did pretty well. The Tmob attorney sounded a little more polished to me, but I'm not taking away from Juren because he seemed to hold his ground pretty well. I will have to listen to it a few more times though. My opinion is it's going to be a long ever how many hours, before we know something. Based on your comments I hope we don't see an opinion for days.
Now to listen again.
Don't know but I'm monitoring the oral argument page.
Thanks. My comment pertained to the attorney not making it when the court was open. I assume by now the attorneys should be in the house.
I was hoping the lawyers had factored in the weather up there. I don't think you get a do-over.
Seems a pretty easy concept to understand. Maybe the three judges will get it. Tmob has been using the smokescreen "we don't infringe because we use signal strength". Tmob uses signal strength, but they have already satisfied the requirements of the patent, before they added that additional parameter.
from a Tmob document describing definitions :
Plaintiffs’ proposed constructions, which would define “pre-established vicinity range” in terms of whether devices are able to recognize each other during operation, fail to give meaning to the constituent term “pre-established” and instead describe an inherent property of every wireless system, to wit, that its range is limited.
My comment: Well each wireless system does have a limited range. Ask the FCC. We'll see tomorrow if the judges think the same thing.
Don't know if I made a mistake, but looking at a letter brief by Gibson Dunn page 4 to judge Payne dated 1 Nov 2012 listed this patent as an example of prior art. Citation 10.
United States Patent 4,664,347
Brown , et al. May 12, 1987
Trash basket having integral, internally-flush vanes for supporting plastic grocery bags
What the hell....??????
Monday is the only day I have a horse in the race.
Good luck to Juren on monday. I'll be anxiously awaiting the oral argument recording and any feedback from Calypso shareholders in attendance.
I very seriously doubt it.
We have about a week until we see what shakes out. If it gets remanded, I believe Tmob gets concerned. I don't think Tmob can win this case if it is put before a jury. Right now the judges are probably reading the Briefs.
Think you could post a short blurb on how you think it went? Good, Bad, Don't know. I know these judges are hard to read, but any info is better than none. At least we'll know if Calypso's attorney showed up and presented a favorable argument.
I like pages 35-38 where Calypso's expert explains the situation very well.
I say Calypso needs to file patent infringement on the 7546141 patent also.
That's been the problem with this case. They're wrapped up in the minutia and overlooking what the patent does. Defining terms out of context from the patent. There is nothing in the flowchart that specifies the need to determine a distance, only that there is a connection or no connection and each event has defined results. Let's hope this set of judges can get it right.
From Calypso's Reply Brief.
"The district court construed “Pre-Established Vicinity Range” as requiring a “predetermined, maximum distance” and further dictated that the claims’ “comprising” language be limited to “is”."
From a patent assigned to Tmobile granted in 2013 that also lists Calypso as prior art was this definition.
"... the words “comprise,” “comprising,”and the like are to be construed in an inclusive sense, as opposed to an exclusive or exhaustive sense; that is to say, in the sense of “including, but not limited to.” "
A case before the appeal court was heard on 6 Jan and a decision was issued on 8 Jan. We will likely know something by Feb 10, if not sooner.
I could live with $2 per share from Tmob.
Legal Mumbo Jumbo has obscured the whole case. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it sounds like a duck. It is a damn duck.
Yes and if this gets remanded back to district court for trial, I believe a bunch of folks will see it.
If this case gets sent back for trial, I don't believe Tmob can win it. The problem I've had all along is that I haven't seen these specs addressed in any court filings. Can Tmob just say, we don't use whatever and people take their word for it.? I just posted something that needs explaining. Why all the talk about range, if you aren't concerned with it?
Don't know if I posted this before, but here it is.
T-Mobile TM-G5240Wireless Router User Manual
Technical specifications
Wireless Operating Range
Indoor – Up to 300 feet
Outdoor – Up to 2000 feet
The TM-G5240 lets you access your network, using a wireless connection, from virtually anywhere within its operating range. Keep in mind, however, that the number, thickness and location of walls, ceilings, or other objects that the wireless signals must pass through, may limit the range. Typical ranges vary depending on the types of materials and background RF (radio frequency) noise in your home or business. The key to maximizing wireless range is to follow these basic guidelines:• Each wall or ceiling can reduce your TM-G5240's range from 3-90 feet (1-30meters). Position the TM-G5240 so that the number of walls or ceilings is minimized.• Be aware of the direct line between network devices. A wall that is 1.5 feet thick(.5 meters), at a 45-degree angle appears to be almost 3 feet (1 meter) thick. At a 2-degree angle it looks over 42 feet (14 meters) thick! Position devices so that the signal will travel straight through a wall or ceiling (instead of at an angle) for better reception.• Building materials can impede the wireless signal - a solid metal door or aluminumstuds may have a negative effect on range. Try to position wireless devices and computers with wireless adapters so that the signal passes through drywall or open doorways and not other materials.• Keep your product away (at least 3-6 feet or 1-2 meters) from electrical devices or appliances that generate extreme radio frequency noise (example, microwave).
From the phone used with Tmobile SGH-t409 series.
Wi-Fi enabled devices (laptops and PDAs as well as UMA phones) can send and receive data wirelessly from any location equipped with Wi-Fi access. This is accomplished using wireless routers, installed within a Wi-Fi location. A wireless router transmits an RF signal to Wi-Fi enabled devices that are within range of the router. Depending on the particular router, its range is usually about 300 feet. The speed of the transmission is governed by the speed of the pipeline fed into the wireless router.
What This Means to You
When you are not in range of a Wi-Fi connection, your normal cellular network takes over and keeps you connected. Your phone switches automatically from Wi-Fi to cellular whenever it's necessary to maintain your connection, whether your phone is in Idle mode or in the middle of an active call. The switching process is virtually unnoticeable.
So where's all the talk about signal strength? There isn't any.
Yes, the ones I listened to were from the website ElisComing posted. A very interesting listen. The site seems to be very up to date. Cases heard the first week of Jan are already online.
I listened to a couple of oral arguments from the Appeal Court. The judges took the defendant to task and asked some pretty tough questions. This wasn't a free ride. I am encouraged that at least the judges appear to listen and they have been well informed with the briefs, by the time the oral hearing occurs. The hearings consisted of the attorneys providing a little background, then the judges started asking questions. They didn't extend the time either. So basically the attorneys don't get to spend a lot of time spewing out legal mumbo jumbo.
It also appears that the oral arguments are posted pretty quickly and the decisions are posted within a month.
Wonder if Calypso's attorney should be looking at the Doctrine of Equivalents in addition to their current strategy. The Tmob device does exactly what was envisioned by the patent, by determining basically the same thing Tmob is doing and achieving the same results as the patent, auto-switching.
Wonder how long it will take them to upload it? I would think it could be done almost immediately.
Great job. Now we have two important stickies.