Here is an example of a Markman hearing in a patent case held by Judge Larry J. McKinney - the same judge in the GreenShift patent case. Google and I selected it at random - I have no reason to think it is not a good example of what to expect in this case.
The Markman hearing was held on 2 August 2005 and the Order on Claim Construction was released on 26 September 2005. The actual transcript of the Markman hearing was released on 8 December of the same year. Another Markman date was set for December of 2006, but was never held because the case was settled out of court in July of 2006.
SEE HERE
SkunK
PS If this case roughly follows the same time schedule as my example, we should see a release on the "Order of Claim Construction" on this case in about 8 weeks - or about 17 October 2011. I suspect that the judge officially or otherwise gagged both parties - While we wait it would shock me to see any information released by either party on any Markman related subject.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
pretty sure the major buying op is after the reverse split
DISH,MSFT,RIM Tried The Same Thing And Failed...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/06/dish-tries-to-get-patent-workaround-validated-sues-tivo.ars
If ICM's "company policy is not to comment on matters in current litigation" and they're breaking this policy by commenting, I think that shows they're pretty freaking worried about the outcome. Knowing they have no hope in the court room, they try to sway the public/industry by making these comments.
Looking at what happened in the DISH/TIVO patent infringement case, we can see ICM is trying the same tactics.
---
"DISH tried countersuing, arguing that TiVo's patents were invalid."
"ICM sued GreenShift in Kansas federal court...ICM remains confident that the GreenShift patents will be declared invalid."
---
"DISH also requested that the US Patent and Trademark Office reexamine the patents, which were ultimately upheld in November 2007."
Greenshift has done this. They asked the patent office to reexamine the patents, which they did, and were reissued as valid.
--
So DISH tried to go around the patents with a patent workaround
"DISH is adamant that its new DVR software doesn't infringe on any TiVo IP and says that the new lawsuit is a response to TiVo's "continued public statements" to the contrary."
"Burris also reiterated that "ICM's new Advanced Oil System™ design and method clearly fall outside all patent claims of GreenShift Corporation's patents under any construction."
---
Despite DISH being adamantly confident that TIVO's patents were invalid; that they had a new way to go around the patents; that they could sue the patent holder; in the end, they lost the case and were forced to pay $600 million in damages to the patent holder TIVO. They tried to sue, invalidate, intimidate, get a new patent...all the same things ICM is trying.
---
"BlackBerry maker Research In Motion claimed to have a few workarounds ready in its patent dispute with NTP but ultimately settled the litigation for $612.5 million."
Microsoft tried to invalidate software patents that they infringed, they lost their case as well.
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG THE PATENT INFRINGER IS OR HOW SMALL THE PATENT HOLDER MAY BE, IN THE END, JUSTICE/PATENTS WILL PREVAIL...
Good Luck To All!$!$!$
however, markets tend to do the most unexpected things....the price may soar or sit stable post reverse split....
Post a Comment