InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

redviking

02/24/15 12:45 PM

#396287 RE: loophole73 #396285

Aside from the legal aspects, the most elegant solutions can seem obvious in retrospect, but prior to the solution there was just a problem.
icon url

Gungrey

02/24/15 12:51 PM

#396290 RE: loophole73 #396285

Always remember that infringers believe patent claims are obvious after have been approved, issued and being used under license by their competitors.

Loop, do we know if 244 or 970 are being used by current licensees such as Samsung and Pegatron? tia
icon url

jjff

02/24/15 1:02 PM

#396291 RE: loophole73 #396285

TY SIR!
icon url

jist1

02/24/15 2:52 PM

#396296 RE: loophole73 #396285

Loop, Thanks for your analysis and information! You said "Since the parties are due in Judge Andrews' court this Friday, we may know something very soon."

Maybe we have some speculation today anticipating a settlement prior to the meeting with da Judge.
icon url

LTE

02/24/15 9:23 PM

#396311 RE: loophole73 #396285

loophole73: Please clarify.

It looks like IDCC won at the Delaware trial court on the '244:

<<The ZTE trial addressing infringement and validity of the ‘966, ‘847, ‘244 and ‘151 patents was held from October 20 to October 27,
2014. During the trial, the judge determined that further construction of certain claim language of the ‘151 patent is required, and the judge
decided to hold another trial as to ZTE's infringement of the '151 patent at a later date. On October 28, 2014, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of InterDigital, finding that the ‘966, ‘847 and ‘244 patents are all valid and infringed by ZTE 3G and 4G cellular devices.

The court issued formal judgment to this effect on October 29, 2014. As noted above, the Delaware District Court judge previously bifurcated issues relating to damages, FRAND-related affirmative defenses, and FRAND-related counterclaims, and trials related to damages and FRAND-related issues are tentatively scheduled for March 21, 2016 with ZTE and April 11, 2016 with MMO.>>

Are you talking about a reexam judges at the PTO or how the '244 fares on the jury decision that'll probably be appealed to the CAFC?

I think the '244 is very important because I think it expires in 2019,
not like 2016 (June, I think?) in the power ramp up patents.