I found this part interesting. I see that both sides have their perspectives. Of course we are right.
And I have to add to this list by our legal reps how about stating since the time they decided to use our tech in their products, not just the selling? They had to make decisions to include our tech into their new products way way way before they offered them for sale and then sold them. How about pre-orders as well? Did they take deposits for the orders?
I hope the judge looks at an sees the whole picture not just the one presented by Samsung.
Defendants are in the best position to verify the
earliest possible date of
infringement
associated with Accused Products.
You
assert
that certain
Samsung
products were not
“
released
”
until after the expiration of
the ’890 and ’749 patents.
However,
y
ou
only
cite to
a
third party website
, not even
Samsung
’s
ow
n records
for a release date
.” Even assuming that the
products
had become
available
to end
users
on
t
hat date
, we believe that the products
would
have been offered for sale to
carriers such
as AT&T, or at trade shows before then. Therefore, selling to end users is not necessarily the
earliest act of infringement.
Samsung
is in the best p
osition to verify the
earliest possible date of
infringement
associated with
the
Accused Products.
If you give us a verified statement that
certain accused products
were not
made, used,
sold, offered for sale
within the Uni
ted States
,
including but not limited to offering for sale to
carriers
, or displaying at trade shows to solicit
orders,
or imported into the United States
, including
but not limited
to
importing
for sale or for
FCC submissions,
before the expiration of
the
relevant
patents, PDS will agree to no longer
assert those
patents against those products