Joint CMC Statement and Status Report filed.
It appears that TPL and Fujitsu 5 is seeking another 60 day stay for the same reasons previously mentioned on the 6/29/05 Status Report and Joint CMC Statement.
If Judge Armstrong denies the 60 day stay, TPL will request 30 days to file a supplemental and/or amended pleading substituting itself for PTSC t/w proposed dates for discovery cut-off, motion cut-off, pretrial and trial.
My Opinion:
I believe the price for settlement has gone up for the Fujitsu 5. I believe Fujitsu, et al, is trying to negotiate the rates for licensing/royalties fees at the same amount or less than AMD and INTC has agreed to pay. Remember, Alliacense website shows “...industry leaders Intel & AMD each recently purchased MMP portfolio licenses to cover their products, and to protect their corporate treasuries from massive exposure. Going forward, the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program will reward first movers in their industry sectors w/dramatic discounts. By design, this structure enables nimble and forward-thinking companies to disadvantage their competitors."
I anticipated that this could happen. Refer to post 891:
"Parties will probably request an extension for stay or proceed with discovery proceedures with the possibility of settling the case(s) within the year."
The cost of litigation is very expensive. It will be in Fujitsu, et al., best interest to settle these cases as soon as possible. Refer to post 947, “The impact of infringing upon the rights of other companies goes beyond having to pay significant fees. In the worst case, it could have a major economic impact on our company due to the loss of business opportunities and other issues. In addition, it could prevent us from providing products and services, thereby severly inconveniencing our customers..."
Hey TPL, if Judge Armstrong denies stay, how about getting a motion hearing date ASAP to enjoin defendants from manufacturing, producing, selling, and etc. And if Judge Armstrong grants this motion, make it public!!!
I personally would have not wanted TPL request a 60 day stay. Let's get on with the case(s). Make that motion to enjoin defendants. Take those oral depositions w/Moore, Fish, experts and executives from AMD & INTC. Bring this guys back for trial testimony and persuade the jury or bench to find in favor of TPL & PTSC. Awards for compensatory damages will be much greater than settlement for licensing/royalty fees.
As to the 8/26/05 Form 12b-25 which shows “... and also recently settled certain suits involving potential infringers of its intellectual property ..,” I still believe it involves parties other than AMD & INTC, unless this form was written by a high school drop out idiot. For example, refer to the joint CMC Statement and Status Report as to the Factual Background of the case(s). AMD was never mentioned as a party in the related lawsuits. The case involving Moore, TPL & Leckrone in 04-0618, involves Inventorship/Ownership of patents. That case settled and was dismissed by Judge Fogel on 6/9/05. Sole plaintiff INTC in 04-0439, sought declaratory judgment of noninfringment and/or invalidity of the '336..." That case settled and was dismissed by Judge Armstrong on 7/7/05. Since Fujitsu 5 did not settle and based on the statement provided on the 8/26/05 Form 12b-25, I assume there were/are outstanding lawsuits involving other parties not mentioned previously. Refer to Master Agr., Article VII, 7.6; Comm. Agr., Article III, 3.4; and consequently Comm. Agr., Article VI. As previously mentioned, consult your accountant and/or attorney.
