Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
7,473.47
(
0.37%
)
US TECH 100
28,612.40
(
0.11%
)
Dow Jones
50,579.70
(
0.58%
)
Brent Oil
95.24
(
-5.86%
)
Bitcoin
76,579.01
(
-0.90%
)
News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 436086
Next 10
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

infinite_q

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 68
Posts 1204
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/02/2003

infinite_q

Re: jmspaesq post# 326715

Tuesday, 07/26/2011 2:55:25 PM

Tuesday, July 26, 2011 2:55:25 PM

Post# of 436086
jms, as I posted in 2009 I could not believe the lengths the ALJ went to in order to find "no infringement" on the '579 patent. I think IDCC basically said "screw this", and went back to the USPTO to get the patent updated with new claims language that gave the ALJ no wiggle room. The ALJ completely fouled up his ID, IMO, and IDCC has taken the last couple of years to get everything in order so NOK cannot say they don't infringe this patent. It looks pretty solid to me, now.

i_q

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Detailed Quote
Recent IDCC News
More IDCC News