   |
|
   |
POPULAR ARTICLES
|
BOOKMARK PAGE
|
PRINT THIS REPORT |
 SEND TO A FRIEND |
 FEEDBACK |
 SEARCH THIS SITE
|
|
InterDigital vs Nokia USITC Hearing
IHub Comments on the hearing by attorneys and others Judicial decision expected Friday, August 14, 2009
Updated August 12, 2009 What this ITC litigation is about: Nokia is the world's largest cell phone manufacturer and accounts for 35% of cell phone sales worldwide. InterDigital has already licensed firms representing 50% of sales worldwide. Nokia is thus the major holdout. Looking for a quicker way than the sometimes 10 year battle in federal courts to force Nokia to pay royalties and licensing fees, InterDigital has asked the United States International Trade Commission (USITC or ITC) to ban the importation into the United States of Nokia 3G cell phones, which InterDigital believes infringe on their patented technology. The patents in question are generally part of the worldwide standard for 3G. Nokia has a heavy burden in defending their position that either (1) InterDigital's llicensing fees are unreasonable, or (2) that Nokia does not infringe InterDigital's patents and thus owes no royalties or licening fees. Samsung faced almost exactly the same challenge last year and settled with InterDigital for $400 million the day before the ITC judgment would be announced. The same judge is hearing this case, which was once coupled with the Samsung case but is now separate. From the testimony in this weeklong hearing, it appears that Nokia already agrees that InterDigital's fees are fair. The battle is whether Nokia is infringing on InterDigital's patents. Nokia apparently has not made much of a case that they are not using the patented technology in question (after all, much of it has been written into the standard that is used worldwide. Instead, Nokia is claiming that InterDigital should never have been granted the patents in the first place, and thus there is nothing to infringe. The ground that Nokia is using to claim that InterDigital should not have been granted the patents in question is to claim "obviousness." If an invention is "obvious" to one skilled in the trade, then it cannot be patented, says a recent Supreme Court decision making it easier to prove obviousness.But Nokia's burden remains heavy: prove that each of the four patents in question (including the claims associated with each patent) are so obvious that the patent office erred in granting the patens and the patents should be rejected.henceforth.
Why this litigation is important to both Nokia and InterDigital InterDigital has been trying to get Nokia to pay that appropriate licensing fees that most other cell phone manufacturers already pay. So far, altho Nokia has oaid $200 million for 2G licensing, they keep finding ways to avoid paying for 3G. InterDigital would benefit by receiving $300 to $400 million in additinal revenues, plus an easier task bringing the last 15% of manufacturers to their licensing window, Nokia is working diligently to market its most sophisticated phones in the U.S. but there is tremendous competition from Apple's iPhone, RIMM's Blackberry, Palm and LG. Again.most knowledgeable observors believe Nokia has too much at stake to risk an importation ban and will settle, either before the decision August 14, or sometime in the several months thereafter before a ban takes effect on December 14, 2009 (assuming the judge rules for InterDigital).
LOOK BELOW FOR A SAMPLING OF THE BEST IHUB POSTS ( SINCE AUGUST 3, 2009) ON THESE FIVE ISSUES 1. NOKIA'S ATTEMPTS TO USE THE "OBVIOUSNESS" DEFENSE AGAINST INTERDIGITAL'S PATENTS 5. UNDERSTANDING THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS
Graphics/formatting added to many posts for clarity by WirelessLedger.com WirelessLedger's current focus stock is InterDigital Communications Corp. (IDCC). For a listing and links to other "best posts" topics click here.. To see "What's New?" on WirelessLedger, LOOK HERE For a look at IHub posts on a broader Nokia-InterDigital topic, click here. Read the hearing transcript yourself! IHub poster and attorney "revlis" provides links to the transcripts of this weeklong hearing HERE.
IHub Posts related to: 1. NOKIA'S ATTEMPTS TO USE THE "OBVIOUSNESS" DEFENSE AGAINST INTERDIGITAL'S PATENTS
First and foremost I am not a patent lawyer and not qualified to opine on patent validity and claims construction. Second, I believe that IDCC is more than capable of tearing down any phone and accurately identifying the various components and the technology contained therein. Third, IDCC worked with Nok for three years coordinating FDD and developing TDD to work in the W-CDMA system which was in the process of standardization at the time. Fourth, IDCC also had Dr. Schilling and other excellent engineers developing and patenting CDMA technology. Fifth, IDCC has successfully developed design winning 3g technology at the chip level further demonstrating the ability of its engineers to identify, coordinate and provide the technology contained in a 3g system. Sixth, the USPO issued the 4 patents involved in the ITC investigation. Seventh, these patents and the claims within are presumed valid. Eighth, Nok must prove invalidity via clear and convincing evidence, a mere preponderance fails to meet its burden. Ninth, IDCC has built and demonstrated systems at the 2, 2.5, 2.75, 3 and 3.5g levels dispelling the myth that the company is some patent troll that has gained its IPR via purchase or some other means than its own creation and invention. Tenth, Nok certainly believed up until April 26, 2006, that it needed a license to avoid infringement of IDCC IPR for its products containing 2 and 3g technology. Eleventh, Nok was so impressed with the heretofore inventions of IDCC that they initiated and consumated a strategic partnership for the development of 3g TDD technology. Twelveth, IDCC has successfully prosecuted patents worldwide for three decades. Finally, thirteenth, IDCC has 50% of the production by 3g manufacturers under license with the lion's share of the remaining 50% being comprised of the original conspirators known as MEN whose purpose for the last 24 years has been to put the company out of business. Based on the above, I believe the picture has been painted for a trier of law and fact to conclude that the Nok products intersect the claims contained in the four patents involved in the investigation. Further, it is my unqualified opinion that Nok has not met its burden of proof under the clear and convincing standard to overcome the presumption of validity conferred upon the 4 patents at the time of issuance by the USPO. It is my unqualified opinion that IDCC can and should win the issuance of a ban of the Nok products identified in the investigation by the ITC. It is my unqualified opinion that the past behavior of Nok not only validates, but mandates that said ban should be issued and not be subject to stay requests by Nok should it appeal. You asked for it Mick and I have given it to you. Please remember that my opinions are unqualified because patent law is a specialty and as a result not worth much at this stage of the game. Courts and triers of fact and law have found that the challenger to validity have met the burden of proof on many occasions. Good luck to us all. MO
The encoder was out there. What nobody thought to do was apply it to that solution. Only IDCC thought of that and make it work. All IDCC needs to do is put some doubt in the ALJ and IDCC wins. Nokia needs to present evidence that is clear and convincing. I do not believe that Nokia came even close. I just can't see Nokia winning the 579 patent argument. Nokia's proof to the court that the 579 patent is invalid, is that Dr Kakaes says so. According to him, it's obvious to any one that's understands the art of engineering. Dr Kakaes opinion is Nokia's evidence that the 579 patent is invalid. On page 87 of the hearing transcript, IDCC states they took all of Nokia's arguments they are relying on in this case; (Nokia witness) Dr Kakaes report, his analysis, his opinions, his reasoning, prior art arguments, etc, and presented it to the patent examiner of the 579 patent. The examiner said he took all of that in consideration and he stated it failed to teach the technique used in the 579 patent, and maintains that the patent is a valid patent. Page 1535 of the transcript where Kakaes is questioned about the obviousness of the solution, he compares the solution to a doorknob when building a house. He states it's a small detail, and then says lets move on. He wanted to get off the subject, but the judge didn't and wanted the question properly answered. Kakaes replies "Correct, they did not propose anything, yes." There goes the obvious argument out the window. I believe judge thought this was an important question to have on record as he decides on his ruling. With the patent examiner restating the patent is valid, and Kakaes having no proof the 579 patent is obvious, how could the judge not rule in favor of IDCC. Is there other evidence that I'm missing here? olddog, I agree with you that obviousness is the crux of Nokia defense against patent '579. That was my opinion for 601 (Samsung) and my opinion for 613 (Nokia). Page 1365. Dr Kakaes, Nokia expert witness testifying. It would have been obvious in hindsight, but would it have been obvious at the time of the patent. Go back to yesterday transcripts and the meeting where a solution was sought and everybody agreed that IDCC solution was the best one. That is why Mr. Toskala testimony is very important. Q. Did you form any opinion regarding the validity of claims 1,3, & 4 of the '579 patent. Page 1535 The Witness: Correct, they did not propose anything, yes. revlis 8/4/09 Revlis, that question by the judge could seal the settlement IMO. ITC testimony of Dr. Lanning of NOK: As expected NOK carefully used Dr. Lanning to testify that all of the claims of IDCC's patents in questions were obvious due to prior art and thus invalid. Please remember that the failure to refute each and every claim of every patent leaves the judge with no evidence on the issue of validity other than IDCC's. Dr. Lanning further used slides pointing out that the staff agreed with certain of Nok's claim term constructions and used the Lucas references and CODIT's final report in support of claim construction and obviousness. IDCC's attorney did a short cross based upon Lanning's prior testimony from the 601 investigation transcript and his prior depositions. Not being a telephony expert, I did not fully understand the nuances of the cross examination, but I am certain our lawyers were pointing out that he was changing his prior testimony to some degree and were testing his credibility. Finally, the staff asks some questions. The questions clearly confirmed that some of IDCC's claim construction terms were contained in the Lucas reference and all of IDCC claim terms were contained in the IS-95 reference. (according to Dr. Lanning) The staff also had Lanning confirm his testimony that certain of NOK's claim terms are contained in the IS-95 references. IMO, This is all difficult testimony to understand, but there is no reason to try and read anything into it anything other that each lawyer has clearly gotten his client's position into the record. What would we expect? There are no surprises in a trial of this magnitude. Each and every word and exhibit had been carefully scrutinized before trial and counter depositions and exhibits were prepared. Every word uttered by an expert has been electronically compared to prior testimony and opinions of the expert for any change in positionb. That's why all the exhibits come into the record and everything goes to the weight. It's now about the weight to be given to this testimony in light of the presumptions of validity and how the unpublished Lucas references are handled in light of the expert testimony of both sides and this information being previously divulged to the patent office. g hors 8/3/089 Read the hearing transcript yourself! IHub poster and attorney "revlis" provides links to the transcripts of this weeklong hearing HERE.
IHub posts related to 2. THE RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKING IT EASIER TO ESTABLISH THE "OBVIOUSNESS" DEFENSE From your post. Taken from the Supreme Court decision. An interesting snippet from KSR: *ed: The Supreme Court decision that considerably broadened definition of "obviousness" A solution that is "obvious" cannot be patented. But what is "obvious"? revlis: You should read the entire Supreme Court decision, then comment.
Excellent point squingebob. Legal experts have disagreed on what the Supreme Court meant in its decisions. You can take any statement from the decision to support your opinion. The important thing is how Judge Luckern understands the Supreme Court decision. I think one can see what the Judge is thinking from his question. From your post. Taken from the Supreme Court decision. olddog - 2 questions gejebr3: To answer your first question, the Supreme Court issued it's decision on April 30, 2007 which was before the Samsung hearing. In regard to your second question, i'd have to go back and review all the testimony. However, going by memory I don't think there was direct mention of the KSR case in the hearing testimony. Even in the recent Nokia hearing, I don't recall any direct mention of the case. That being said, as I previously posted, I believe that during the Nokia hearing both sides experts' testimony was formulated by the legal teams with the KSR case in mind. This probably also happened in the Samsung case. While not mentioned in the hearings, I am pretty sure that in both parties summary legal briefs and rebuttals [which we have not seen], the case was part of their argument.
Infinite, my question is why did it take this case for anyone to try an invalidate an obvious patent, why didn't they make this claim before. Which I believe they did and Kakaes information was provided to the USPTO and they still issued the patent. As I recall in the consolidated case Nok and Sam moved for a Summary determination that the 579 patent was invalid. They were denied. I also don't think even the great Nokia can overcome all the patents in this case based on a bunch of argumentative evidence. Did you or anyone else see any hard fast evidence that all the patents in this case are obvious or not infringed. my3sons/JohnSamuel: It is obvious (LOL) that you don't agree with my postings about the effect of the KSR decision on the legal criteria for evaluation obviousness. To restate it, what may have been non obvious in the past may now be considered obvious. For example, references have been made to the fact that the USPTO reviews patents for obviousness, and that if a patent is granted it must have passed their review. That is correct. However, as a result of the KSR decision, the USPTO has issued a whole new set of guidelines for their examiners to use for determining obviousness. Therefore, I repeat, conditions that in the past may have resulted in a finding of a patent being non obvious, may now result in a finding of being obvious. "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (10Oct2007)" http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=40130550 In another example of the effect of KSR on obviousness decisions, and an illustration how USPTO granted patents can be declared invalid, based on 21 Published Federal Circuit cases which conducted an obviousness inquiry utilizing the analysis and legal framework of KSR, there were: 15 invalidated/rejected based on obviousness (71%) I have no idea how Judge Luckern will rule. All I can say is that based on my very limited understanding of the KSR criteria, it appeared that both sides structured their experts' testimony taking KSR into account. I also believe that the odds favor a settlement before the decision. olddog967 8/3/09
my3sons: In regard to Judge Luckern's rejection of the request for a summary determination on the '579 patent, all that meant was that the requesting parties did not prove that there were no factual matters in dispute. His determination was that because of that, the matter should be considered during the hearing. O'dog I am aware of what the denied summary determination meant. As for the KSR obviousness test threshold, does the mere spattering of argument rise to the affirmative? After all as you said both parties have prepped their witnesses. But most of all does the argument of obviousness overcome an issued patent without some scientific proof? And are all the patents with one only issued in the last 1 or 2 years all so obvious? As for me, I think Nokia does not place their fate in the ALJ's hands and takes the settlement route. Personally, I will take a settlement at IDCC's defined rates, but if necessary, I am willing to stand for a decision. i_q, i've always hypothesized that idcc chose this patent because it's so closely coupled to the standard. the fact that idcc was at the right place--in standards meetings--is how idcc can clearly show the patent is in the standard, the phones is standards compliant, thus nok infringes. with a finding, the patent will be strong and the standard essentiality a fact. it's probably not one of idcc's greatest developments. Read the hearing transcript yourself! IHub poster and attorney "revlis" provides links to the transcripts of this weeklong hearing HERE. IHub posts related to Nokia infringement of IDCC patents. Someone correct me if I am wrong but i thought revlis or olddog posted a while back that both parties agreed that a number of Nokia phones used the technologies asserted in the patents being contested in this case. If that is indeed the case, then the argument of infringement boils down to whether the patents are valid. Nokia tried its best to argue the "obviousness" of the technology included in the '579' patent, but I don't think they proved their case. They simply couldn't get around the fact that the USPTO considered the obviousness arguments of Kakaes in its review of the patent application and determined that no where in the public record was a discussion of the one-half rate convolutional scrambling sequence decoder. No -warbil 8/3/09 warbil: The basic law (§ 1337) basically states that it is unlawful to import into the US articles that infringe a valid and enforceable US patent. As part of their case IDCC had to show that Nokia had imported phones that infringed their patents. The document that was referred to was a stipulation by both parties that certain phones using the technologies that were at issue had been imported into the US. Therefore there was no question as to whether IDCC had met the importation requirement. This had nothing to do with the issues of infringement and validity, both of which have to be ruled on. BTW: I thought the discussion about Dr. Kakaes' obviousness argument, was in relation to another IDCC patent issued after the '579 patent, but I have no time to look it up now.
Warbil, re: NOK infringement. NOK's attornies did present arguments that NOK's handsets do not infringe the patents in question. I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly when you say that the parties agreed that at least some of NOK's handsets do infringe. The arguments regarding infringement of the '579 patent were very weak, IMO. They tried to argue that the NOK implementation of the 1/2 rate convoutional encoder does not match the preferred embodiment in the patent, but IDCC's expert did a pretty good job of explaining that there are many ways to implement the algorithm required in the 3GPP standard, which clearly requires that the 1/2 rate convolutional encoding be used to generate the spreading code. I think those arguments of NOK's expert will not win out at the end of the day, so it really comes down to whether NOK can prove the patent is not valid. I agree that the rebuttal case made by IDCC is pretty good. I actually thought they won the validity argument with their initial case presentation, but the arguments raised by NOK's expert got me to thinking that maybe they have grounds to invalidate the patent. After all, IDCC was pretty much in the right place at the right time, and they did happen to choose the best solution for the encoder that was needed when 3GPP changed from a 10-bit to a 16-bit UE identification code. I guess you could say that they were very opportunistic in taking the initiative to quickly analyze the available options and submit the right solution to the working group. In a sense you could argue, as NOK's expert did, that the solution was staring them in the face (having been used already for the channel encoding function). However, as IDCC correctly points out, neither MOT, Siemens, LG, Lucent or any of the other companies participating suggested the use of this "obvious" solution, which is proof on the face of it that it was not so obvious So at the end of the day, can you really fault IDCC for taking advantage of the situation and recommending the best technical solution for this emerging requirement? Is it their fault that NOK was asleep at the switch when the opportunity to solve this problem arose? I don't think so. And I don't think I would bet the farm that the ALJ will invalidate this patent if I were NOK. This is the real wildcard in the case, IMO. I think this is the patent that NOK has the most to fear when they look back and consider how the ALJ will rule. If the ALJ wants to get back at NOK for some of the shenanigans they have pulled in this case then this is his golden opportunity to stick it to them. I doubt the commission will overturn his ID if he decides to side with the patent examiner who considered the obviousness and prior art arguments and still allowed this patent (and its continuations) to issue. JMO infinte q 8/3/09
infinite: I like your analysis regarding the validity of the '579 patent. As I posted several times, the Supreme Court's KSR decision changed the rules in regard to obviousness to the detriment of patent holders. In essence, they threw out the criteria that had been used by the Federal Circuit, that had favored patent holders, and they made it easier to prove obviousness. Depending on the circumstances, what would previously have been ruled as non obvious may now be ruled as obvious. It is a much more complex matter than many board posters seem to think. As ghors pointed out both parties have very skilled lawyers who are aware of recent case law and prepared the witnesses and their testimony based on their reading of the latest guidance. It is now up to the ALJ to sort it all out and come up with his decision, which he has already stated that he expects the losing party to appeal. Some may consider this as a negative post. I don't believe so. What I have been trying to point out is that patent law is very complex and specialized, the understanding of which is beyond most of us, including myself. olddog, I don't think your post is particularly negative. Quite the contrary. I think this case is no slam dunk for either party - which I believe greatly increases the chances of a settlement. I'm ready to move forward, and I hope both NOK and IDCC are of the same mindset. Let's get this deal done and start reaping the benefits. Both sides have a lot to lose. NOK would suffer pretty devastating consequences with a ban, and IDCC could have one or more patents invalidated or worse. Yes, a win at the ITC would give us great leverage with other holdouts, but I'm ready for a settlement, personally. Infinite, my question is why did it take this case for anyone to try an invalidate an obvious patent, why didn't they make this claim before. Which I believe they did and Kakaes information was provided to the USPTO and they still issued the patent. As I recall in the consolidated case Nok and Sam moved for a Summary determination that the 579 patent was invalid. They were denied. I also don't think even the great Nokia can over come all the patents in this case based on a bunch of argumentative evidence. Did you or anyone else see any hard fast evidence that all the patents in this case are obvious or not infringed. The man that went past me was wearing clothes. Someone else says the man that went past them was naked. First question was it the same man? -my3sons87 8/3/09
Here is the indication that Nokia is not defending itself against the charge that it is using IDCC technology. "Mr. Flinn has indicated that the rebuttal case is limited to validity issues." Hi, Revlis, JMO
I took that statement at face value that Nokia was going to limit its defense to validity so IDCC would limit its rebuttal to validity. Unfortunately, we do not have access to Nokia's posthearing statement although we do have Nokia's finding of fact. Mr. Flinn has indicated that the rebuttal case is limited to validity issues. mo revlis 8/4/09 my3, good question. I don't know the details of the prosecution history of this patent or its continuations, but it appears that the USPTO had a chance to hear Kaka's opinion regarding the obviousness, and they chose to ignore it. Who knows who else challenged this, or what other prior art they considered. My question is, if this was so obvious why didn't anyone else bother to submit it and apply for the patent? You think NOK would have passed on the chance if they had come up with the idea? You think if it was so obvious LG would have proposed it (after all, they submitted 2 proposals, neither of which included IDCC's "obvious" solution).
Read the hearing transcript yourself! IHub poster and attorney "revlis" provides links to the transcripts of this weeklong hearing HERE. IHub posts relate tio: FAIR LICENSING TERMS Revlis: It just occurred to me that somewhere in the transcripts of either the pre trial conference or hearing itself NOK clearly stated that IDCC's 3G license rates were reasonable. In context, the ITC can only issue an injunction against NOK. NO money without a settlement. Findings of fact on validity and infringement are not binding on a district court. We have a case currently stayed in Delaware which has the power to find validity, infringement AND money damages. Point being, such an admission by NOK could be used against them in the Delaware case on damages and FRAND defenses. Can you find this statement so we can be absolutely certain of this potential admission. g hors 7/28 Ghors, revlis 7/28/09 IHub posts rlated to APPEALING A FINDING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE USITC ON WHETHER TO BAN IMPORTS Olddog: Question about appeal process RE your post: What is the appeal process? Thank you for sharing your time so generously! Bill Dalglish 8/3/09 BillD: There is no automatic review of an ALJ's determination by the ITC Commission. Any party to the investigation may request a Commission review, And the Commission may decide on it's own to do a review if at least one Commissioner votes for it. Commission decisions can be appealed to the Federal Circuit. I'm pretty sure that appeal is what the ALJ was referring to. From ITC rules: Sec. 210.43 Petitions for review of initial determinations on matters other than Sec. 210.44 Commission review on its own motion of initial -olddog967 8/3/09 Olddog Import ban stays in effect during appeal, right? BillD: The ban is in effect during the appeal at the Federal Circuit, unless, the Court issues a stay of the ban. Here is a recent example: "Vizio, the number one shipper of LCD HDTVs in the US, was granted an stay yesterday (June 10, 2009) in the US Court of Appeals Federal Circuit. The order allows Vizio to resume the importation of its digital televisions while the US International Trade Commission’s order banning its HDTVs (due to patent violations) is being appealed, according to Vizio’s press release." Read the hearing transcript yourself! IHub poster and attorney "revlis" provides links to the transcripts of this weeklong hearing HERE.
Posts related to This IDCC-Sammy document will provide some guidance as to how a settlement will be effectuated at the ITC. -my3sons87 8/7/09 revlis/my3/olddog- question, if the parties were to notify the ALJ a settlement were imminent, does this require public disclosure? tia George my guess would be that they would notify the ALJ by a joint stipulation, which would not be public. Then they would follow that with a motion to dismiss pending settlement, that would be public. And they would have to do this before 8/14. imo dmiller If a settlement has been reached it will be announced, but not till the legals have all been addressed. If no settlement then we get a ruling on the 14th and if they don't want a ruling a settlement announcement will have to be made, not withheld. I will say one more time, that no way in hell is all the patents obvious and invalid due to prior art, or obviousness. Nokia has adopted a policy of not paying and fighting to try and break a company if they can, and they have in my opinion lost any right to a Frandly license because of their behavior and refusing to accept a Frandly deal. They risk a injunction and if all goes well a hell of a high rate that may be trebled, a beginng lawyer would have no trouble displaying the scorched earth tactics they have deployed. JMO If settlement is to occur by Friday the following will happen. -Parties will file a joint motion to stay the procedural schedule and extend the target date. -The ALJ will grant an order rendering an Initial Determination Extending the target date to a date certain in the future. -The commission will decide not to review the ID and let it stand. -The parties will then file a JOINT MOTION OF THE PRIVATE PARTIES FORTERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION DUE TO SETTLEMENT. -The ALJ will issue his final ID and the matter will be resolved. Check out the following links for process, as occurred in the 601 investigation. If we see the above document filed it is all over but the singing. If we don't see that document filed then it may go to decision. Which I doubt.
Posts related to UNDERSTANDING JUDGE LUCKERN FROM ANOTHER RECENT CASE (Samsung vs Sharp)
JimLur- the Blog reference Janet gave you is an absolute must read> ALJ Luckern ordered that Samsung post a bond during the presidential review period equal to the value of the downstream infringing products-HOLY SHIT ALJ Luckern is awesome!His reasoning is thorough and the penalty harsh. Regarding remedy, ALJ Luckern recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order that extends to Samsung’s downstream LCD televisions, LCD computer monitors, and LCD professional displays, and a cease and desist order. In reaching this determination, ALJ Luckern held that “the evidence shows a balance of the EPROMs factors weighs in favor of excluding accused LCD modules that are incorporated into downstream LCD televisions, LCD computer monitors and LCD professional displays.” Additionally, ALJ Luckern recommended “the entry of a bond in the Presidential Review period at 100 percent of the entered value of Samsung’s infringing LCD products which include downstream LCD TVs, LCD professional displays and LCD computer monitors.” -georgebailey 8/12/09
For those who are interested. The below is the public version of Judge Luckern decision of violation in the Sharp/Samsung investigation that was posted yesterday. It was a decision he worked on right after the IDCC/Nokia hearing. -revlis 8/6/09 Page 27 is very interesting in that Luckern seems to agree that claim terms must be seen by persons of ordinary skill in terms of the entire patent, including the specification, not merely the particular claim in which the term appears. I like this. IMO squingeqbob 8/6/09 That is why I posted it. I think it is very informative about the judge. mo revlis 8/6/09 Page 54 Judge Luckern discusses obviousness. Page 56 he discusses the recent Supreme Court decision that olddog posted. mo revlis 8/6/09
i like that he's leaning on this..."the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obvious analysis" yeah, i could of thought of the pet rock, after all, it was only a rock. old post: mo revlis 8/6/09 Exactly. Isn't it obvious that planes can fly? I mean what the hell were all those blockheads thinking before the wright brothers put it together. Boy what a bunch of dumb hacks, we could have been flying in the stone age if some neanderthal had gotten off their lazy butt and offered the obvious solution. -RedCyfac 8/6/09 revlis: The problem is that these cases are not over until the fat lady sings. Here is a case where Judge Luckern found a patent to be non obvious and declared a violation; but, the Commission this week reversed the violation ruling by finding the patent to be obvious. -olddog87 8/6/09 m3s, I did not know what we were going to get when I posted that decision by Judge Luckern in the Samsung/Sharp investigation but I am encouraged by what i am reading. Page 64. revlis...THANKS for posting these finding by the judge. This is exactly the thought process that so many of us have felt would go into a ruling like this. He is very direct and seems to cut to the chase with clear distinction of why he has arrived at his decision. THANKS for all your efforts !!! I am very encouraged by his interpretations. jmho part of what the supreme court affirmed... "such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved problems, failure of others, etc might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." what was term used? starring them in the face? "failure of others.." you mean other participants at the same meeting, who submited other solutions, or no solutions at all? it was soooo obvious, that others came up with different solutions Good highlight, based on the portions of the case that are public and the ALJ's thoroughness in his decision gives me hope that it is no way Nok can trump all the claims. I did not know what we were going to get when I posted that decision by Judge Luckern in the Samsung/Sharp investigation but I am encouraged by what i am reading The fact that there was no similar validity challenge in the Samsung/IDCC hearing despite Samsung's presumed access to all the evidence Nokia presented is interesting. mainelefty, mo revlis 8/6/09 You've been doing enough for sure without looking up stuff for me. I just find the scope of the Nokia presentation and then the final apparent narrowing of the case to obviousness at the rebuttal stage interesting. Even as the standard has been loosened by recent interpretations, it seems to be a difficult proof, and one that Samsung didn't pursue strongly, maybe because they had support from the staff on other grounds. If there is a settlement, we will probably never solve the mystery of what the staff was actually thinking here. |
| Important Disclaimer |
We welcome your comments! All Rights Reserved. Bill Dalglish |
Direct site comments to Music City Design, LLC |
The excellent IHub posts here offer information and insight into how administrative law judge Paul Luckernmay rule on August 14th The period we are curently experiencing will be intensely interesting. Good information will significantly strengthen the hand of investors. If the sample posts here are helpful, consider regularly reading the