I HAVE GOOD FEELING Re OUTCOME OF EDIG LITIGATION WITH SAMSUNG (PART1)
in response to
by
Message: PR's
Here i want to thanks SILVER for his outstanding effort for providing us the pacer files.
As you noticed SAMSUNG coming with full force to defend itself .,SAMSUNG is one of our bigger fish but
i believe there is another one that even bigger than SAMSUNG that i may disclose it later.( May be
SUNPOOP and LAWYERLONG would know by now !)
SAMSUNG coming along with 10 attorneys from 10 different law firm with so far more than 900 pages of
explanation.That by itself gives much credence to e.DIGITAL the very importance of its patents and how
they should follow it very aggresively with full force .
THIS PARAGRAPH TELLS ABOUT HOW SAMSUNG ATTORNEY VIEWS EDIG LITIGATION
"I think our cards will be
on the table at that point, and -- given the fact that
there are six Defendants and the expectation that there will
be dozens of asserted accused products, we think that’s an
efficient way to proceed."
on the table at that point, and -- given the fact that
there are six Defendants and the expectation that there will
be dozens of asserted accused products, we think that’s an
efficient way to proceed."
HERE ARE SAMSUNG DEFENDENTS !
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: MR. MICHAEL BRETT JOHNSON
Fish & Richardson - Dallas
1717 Main St., Suite 5000
Dallas, Texas 75201-4109
MR. SCOTT D. STIMPSON
Morgan Lewis & Bockius
101 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10178
MR. MARC S. BLACKMAN
Jones Day - Chicago
77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 3500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
MR. THOMAS JOHN WARD, JR.
Ward & Smith Law Firm
P.O. Box 1231
Longview, Texas 75606-1231
MR. LAWRENCE C. DRUCKER
MS. CINDY YANG
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
MR. GRANT E. KINSEL
Foley & Lardner
2029 Century Park East
35th Floor
Los Angeles, California
90067
MR. GUY N. HARRISON
P.O. Box 2845
Longview, Texas 75606
MR. TODD M. FRIEDMAN
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
153 East 53rd St.
Citicorp Center
New York, New York 10022
MR. ALLEN GARDNER
Potter Minton PC
110 North College
Suite 500
P.O. Box 359
Tyler, Texas 75710-0359
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: MR. MICHAEL BRETT JOHNSON
Fish & Richardson - Dallas
1717 Main St., Suite 5000
Dallas, Texas 75201-4109
MR. SCOTT D. STIMPSON
Morgan Lewis & Bockius
101 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10178
MR. MARC S. BLACKMAN
Jones Day - Chicago
77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 3500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
MR. THOMAS JOHN WARD, JR.
Ward & Smith Law Firm
P.O. Box 1231
Longview, Texas 75606-1231
MR. LAWRENCE C. DRUCKER
MS. CINDY YANG
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
MR. GRANT E. KINSEL
Foley & Lardner
2029 Century Park East
35th Floor
Los Angeles, California
90067
MR. GUY N. HARRISON
P.O. Box 2845
Longview, Texas 75606
MR. TODD M. FRIEDMAN
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
153 East 53rd St.
Citicorp Center
New York, New York 10022
MR. ALLEN GARDNER
Potter Minton PC
110 North College
Suite 500
P.O. Box 359
Tyler, Texas 75710-0359
As you are appreciating in following excerpt , EDIG has 65 claims against SAMSUNG from 4 different patents ! . IT narrowed down to 18 claims by October ,2008 and by this month
MARCH ,2009 by only 10 claims .This is very significant news because as it narrowed down to fewer claims like 3-4 per patent ,the chance of the PATENT GETTING STRENGTH BECOMES MORE OBVIOUS !
from October document
MR. YUNGWIRTH: Your Honor, at this point in
the case, not having the benefit of claim construction or
understanding of the Defendants’ invalidity positions, we have
narrowed the sixty-five claims at issue in the four patents to
eighteen. We believe that’s an appropriate number. That’s
not to say that we wouldn’t possibly narrow it in the future.
We’re just not in a position now where we feel comfortable
waiving the right to assert additional claims beyond ten. We
believe the intent of the rule is to limit -- the Court’s rule
is to limit the claims to a reasonable number, and in this
instance we believe that eighteen is an appropriate number,
based on these four patents that are at issue in the case.
THE COURT: There are a lot of reasons for the
rule, but I’ll --
MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor, Todd Friedman.
THE COURT: Why is eight -- with this number of
parties, why is eighteen so much --
MR. FRIEDMAN: I think -- I think eighteen to
start with respect to the infringement contentions that
they’ll serve in a month or so is satisfactory, but with
keeping with the Court’s docket control order and Judge
Folsom’s practice, we believe narrowing it to ten would be the
appropriate course. We’re asking that they narrow it to ten
in March of ‘09 which is more than a month after we would
serve our invalidity contentions.
the case, not having the benefit of claim construction or
understanding of the Defendants’ invalidity positions, we have
narrowed the sixty-five claims at issue in the four patents to
eighteen. We believe that’s an appropriate number. That’s
not to say that we wouldn’t possibly narrow it in the future.
We’re just not in a position now where we feel comfortable
waiving the right to assert additional claims beyond ten. We
believe the intent of the rule is to limit -- the Court’s rule
is to limit the claims to a reasonable number, and in this
instance we believe that eighteen is an appropriate number,
based on these four patents that are at issue in the case.
THE COURT: There are a lot of reasons for the
rule, but I’ll --
MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor, Todd Friedman.
THE COURT: Why is eight -- with this number of
parties, why is eighteen so much --
MR. FRIEDMAN: I think -- I think eighteen to
start with respect to the infringement contentions that
they’ll serve in a month or so is satisfactory, but with
keeping with the Court’s docket control order and Judge
Folsom’s practice, we believe narrowing it to ten would be the
appropriate course. We’re asking that they narrow it to ten
in March of ‘09 which is more than a month after we would
serve our invalidity contentions.
AS LESS CLAIM PER PATENT ,it has best chance to validate itself in the court.
FOLLOWING table give the variable risk of claims in the litigation process , EDIG risk per this study is extremely low !
Table 1. The unique contribution of isolated patent risk variables as they impact the relative risk of being involved in patent litigation
|
Risk Factor |
Relative Risk of Being Involved in Litigation |
|
N1 rating |
10.3 |
|
Number of claims >26 |
2.1 |
|
Number of claims < 8 |
0.54 |
|
Number of claims <26 but >8; over 14 subsequent art and, over 30 prior art references |
9.0 |
Discussion
The ability to detect patents that are at risk for patent litigation can be accurately assessed using the variables measured in the present study. Adverse selection risk can be significantly ameliorated using the model presented here. Insurance and impairment assessment that fails to consider patent uniqueness will lead to avoidable losses.
14 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply