So a couple of things...
The order (in general) is develop a product, then write patents to protect them. This tells us that since Intel wrote this patent it did indeed exist in some Intel product at some time. However, only about 10% of the products developed ever make it to market. This is pretty much an industry average, but I think Intel is about average on this metric.
Based on earlier conversations on this topic, it appears the most likely product that resulted in the Intel patent was the Cherry Trail sensor hub. This product never made it, and there were never any improvements or follow on products to it.
From what I read of the HDVY claim, it mostly hinges on the algorithm being present in a public domain library, and programs compiled with that library run on Intel hardware. How this results in liability being attached to Intel is unclear to me. It is highly likely that some of Intel's customers violate this patent, and of course Intel would hate to inconvenience their customers over something like this. Perhaps part of HDVY's plan is that Intel will pay them off rather than inconvenience their customers.
I have heard this comment "fought hard" a few times and struggle with how to quantify "hard" in this case. What exactly did Intel do that qualifies as fighting hard? How many hours of depositions were taken? How many expert witnesses were called to testify? How much discovery was done? I think on all of those the answer is none. Intel did file a few motions, but certainly less than a dozen. I would thinking "fighting hard" would mean hundreds of motions.
just a few more thoughts,
Alan
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
