THIS IS GOOD EXAMPLE FOR e DIGITAL PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE

Posted by: sman998 on August 11, 2008 11:17AM

In response to: Re: Markman: Courts Continu... by doni

DONI, this is very interesting outcome for transmeta that can be applied for eDIGITAL with huge amount of settlement before markman hearing.We are also in the category of classic David and Goliath confrontation. and if we win thats going to be tremendous widespread front page news.

Ropes & Gray's IP Group Obtains Big Settlement for Transmeta
February 1, 2008

A team led by Norm Beamer, Bob Morgan and Larry Rogers, partners in the Intellectual Property Group of Ropes & Gray, helped negotiate a $250 million settlement deal with microchip giant Intel Corp. on behalf of client Transmeta Corporation. The deal was part of a settlement of a patent infringement lawsuit relating to power-saving and other microprocessor technologies. The settlement amount consists of an immediate payment of $150 million plus another $100 million to be paid over the next five years.

Press coverage of the settlement was widespread, with many articles noting Ropes & Gray's advisory role: The Recorder, which covers the California legal market, noted the firm's role in "Tiny Company Makes Patent Case Pay." IP Law360 cited Ropes & Gray in its account, "Intel Takes $250M License To Settle Patent Spat." And The Boston Globe's Web site, boston.com, reported the settlement in its article, "Ropes & Gray counsels licensing deal."

Transmeta filed suit in October 2006 in Federal District Court in Delaware charging that Intel had infringed 11 Transmeta U.S. patents by making and selling a variety of microprocessor products. Substantially the entire Intel processor product line was charged with infringement of one or more Transmeta patents, including Intel’s Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium M, Core and Core 2 product lines.

Intel countered Transmeta’s claims by asserting that Transmeta’s processors infringed seven Intel patents, thereby setting the stage for a lengthy legal battle that many in the media likened to a classic David and Goliath confrontation. Transmeta's market capitalization at the time was around $40 million. Intel, the world's largest semiconductor company, had a market capitalization of $127 billion. A Markman hearing was scheduled for December 2007 and trial slated for December 2008.

“This case was really more like David versus super-Goliath,” says partner Larry Rogers, who worked extensively on the case. “The settlement is significant for our client and provides it with a much needed infusion of cash.” Palo Alto partner Norman Beamer adds: "Transmeta now has the opportunity to further develop and license its pioneering inventions in low power computer technology, the introduction of which Intel admitted was a ’wake-up’ call that caused it to switch from power hungry to more energy efficient processors used in today's laptops.”

Before bringing suit, Ropes & Gray worked with Transmeta personnel for years behind the scenes, sifting through dozens upon dozens of Transmeta patents and pending applications to identify patents that Intel was likely infringing. As it turned out, that was the easy part. The bigger challenge was figuring out which Intel processors infringed which patents, as the patents were directed to internal processor circuitry and architectures not visible to a casual user of the chips. The firm succeeded by searching for and studying whatever publicly available information it could find, including scores of Intel patents, data sheets, technical articles, and PowerPoint slides presented by Intel engineers at professional conferences posted on the Internet. But in several cases, the available public information proved insufficient. So Ropes & Gray attorneys, working with a team of retained independent experts, devised and ran a series of tests on Intel’s processors which, over the course of many months, ultimately pried loose the secrets of their operation and demonstrated infringement.