first a non-infringeon poster:
Re: Alberta Telecommunications
by: intruderviking 11/18/05 07:55 am
Msg: 826292 of 826739
This "prior-art" patent was identified years ago, per the link just provided regarding the Micron vs. Rambus case (dated 2001). Rambus has been aware of this and the HP patent, so their litigation strategies have to include dealing with this issue.
These issues would have normally come up in the infringement cases and be dealt with(which we have not gotten to yet...) there.
The only issue here is that instead of just using this info to try and defend themselves in an infrigement trial (which is what should be done), they are trying to start a new case in front of Payne who has shown a penchant for doing novel things with Patent Law.
To me, it indicates that Samsung does not think this prior art claim is very strong. They don't trust going in front of an unbiased and well-versed patent judge as part of an infringement trial. This is a hail mary to Payne to try and get a ruling on this "prior art" from Payne, that can then become the precedent for use in other trials.
There are some definite weaknesses in this filing. The venue is wrong (should be in either Delaware or California). This is not a direct outgrowth of the VA1 trial, although they are trying to morph it into that.
We'll see what Payne can do with it, but I think Rambus will have the law on their side and can hopefully again outmaneuver Payne. I'm maintaining through this as well. Really only new news is that they are trying to have Payne hear it instead of Whyte. If Whyte rules in the Hynix case (who will use this in their infringement defense during phase 2) for Rambus, thus dismissing this prior art, the issue will be resolved. No matter how hard Payne tries, he can't speed this new trial up too fast. Discovery, scheduling hearings and a trial will have to be held since the issues are very different. IF Payne somehow short circuits it due to "spoilation," which I don't necessarily put past him, he will be overturned on appeal, IMO.
Like others have said, this is just a realization by the infringers they will be proceeding to an actual infringement phase of this whole affair. They are trying to go out of their way to again get this in front of Payne vice Whyte. Tells you something about the strength of this prior art. They would have no fear of Whyte if they thought it was strong enough to stand up in an unbiased court.
IntruderViking
Long since 1999, Lurking since 2001
-------------
Re: Alberta Telecommunications
by: intruderviking 11/18/05 08:06 am
Msg: 826295 of 826739
Other note.
This could mess up chances of a settlement prior to the infringement phase of the trial, after an assumed positive ruling regarding spoilation.
Since Alberta is not an infringer, they most likely would not be part of any DRAM settlement between the MM and Rambus (or at least Rambus would have to separately settle with them at the same time to ensure the other settlements were rock solid).
Samsung is almost now forcing Rambus to go to trial against Hynix to ensure this prior art is heard before Whyte and not Payne. They would still come after Hynix, and could give up after Hynix is heavily damaged, or they can win the issue. Samsung is setting up Hynix as well as Rambus here.
If Rambus settles with everyone before infringement trial, Alberta could still pursue this case (since they are not a MM). The liklihood of it being heard by Payne is much higher if there is not an outstanding case vs. the MM in California or Delaware.
IntruderViking
