Unenforceability issue ..#1

Drew Hamilton = inequitable conduct

PTSC decides to abandon patent 148

Shaw an employee and Hamilton are aware of intent to abandon

Patent is abandoned by USPTO for failure to timely file a response

Hamilton files declaration two years later  with USPTO stating delay in filing was unintentional

Through this declaration Hamilton intentionally deceives PTO

Deception was material because otherwise no patent would have been issued

Unenforceability issue #2

Shaw = inequitable conduct during prosecution of 336

Shaw was contractor for Nanotronics and involved in design of ShBoom microprocessor

Engineers at Nano including Shaw intend to implement in this processor a critical component of 336 a ring oscillator system clock

1992 Nano decides ring oscillator system clock will not work

Mr. Shaw aware of deficiencies worked with engineers at PTSC (successor to Nanotronics) to correct flaws

Shaw was liaison between PTSC and USPTO

Shaw fails to tell USPTO that it would not work

Intentionally deceived USPTO

In our response to their second amended counterclaims we request judgement as follows:

Declaration that they are infringing on 148 & 336

declaration that 148, 336 are not invalid

declaration that 148, 336 are not unenforceable

award of attorney fees and costs and further relief as the court may deem just and equitable. 

Comments welcome in addition to corrections