InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,567.19
(
1.06%
)
US TECH 100
19,828.00
(
0.95%
)
Dow Jones
39,375.87
(
0.17%
)
Brent Oil
86.78
(
0.00%
)
Bitcoin
57,959.00
(
2.31%
)
Post# of 96905
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

sexysamir

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 26
Posts 2161
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/19/2017

sexysamir

Re: I_Am_Ram post# 39204

Wednesday, 02/14/2018 9:40:40 AM

Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:40:40 AM

Post# of 96905
It’s almost identical to Cisco’s. They’re claiming that the 565 patent should be invalidated based on prior art. They give examples of two patents, just like Cisco did, and claim a person with knowledge in that area could combine those two patents to create what the 565 patent does. Literally the only difference is they picked two different prior patents.
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.

Sign Up