SOME INTERESTING FACTS FROM DOC 151 IN FAVOR OF e.DIGITAL VS SAMSUNG -1
in response to
by
Message: Definition of a basher / Bashers Handbook
We SHOULD BE VERY SATISFIED AND AT THE SAME TIME LUCKY TO HAVE 2 BRIGHT AND
VERY INTELLIGENT IP ATTORNEYS FROM DUANE MORRIS DEFENDING e.DIGITAL PATENTS.
I MEAN ATTORNEY MATHEW YUNGWIRTH AND MICHAEL SMITH .
WHEN INITIALLY e.DIGITAL FILED CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG , IT WAS FOR SERIES OF CAMERA
ON CHIPS INFRINGEMENTS .BUT LATER ON THEY FOUND OUT NOT ALL BUT MAJORITY 110
OUT OF 136 INFRINGERS PRODUCTS OF SAMSUNG CAMERA AND ETC HAS BEEN USING ZORAN
COACH PROCESSOR . IN FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS YOU WILL FIND SAMSUNG ADMITS AND DOES
NOT DISPUTE THAT PROCESSOR WAS FOUND IN MANY OF ACCUSED PRODUCTS , AND THIS
ITEM BY ITSELF IS MAJOR VICTORY FOR e.DIGITAL FOR FUTURE SETTLEMENT OR SIGNIFICANT
ITEM BY ITSELF IS MAJOR VICTORY FOR e.DIGITAL FOR FUTURE SETTLEMENT OR SIGNIFICANT
ACE CARD FOR WINNING MARKMAN HEARING.
(TEXAS INSTRUMENT AND FUJITSU PROCESSOR ALSO MENTIONED)
FROM DOC 151
e.DIGITAL CORPORATION’S SUR-REPLY IN FURTHER OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH PATENT RULE 3-1
AND TO LIMIT e.DIGITAL TO ITS PRIOR THEORIES
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH PATENT RULE 3-1
AND TO LIMIT e.DIGITAL TO ITS PRIOR THEORIES
Including this Sur-Reply, the two parties collectively have filed over 1,100 pages to argue
a Motion seeking relief to which e.Digital largely consented before the Motion was even filed to
avoid this type of wasteful motion practice.
a Motion seeking relief to which e.Digital largely consented before the Motion was even filed to
avoid this type of wasteful motion practice.
The crux of Samsung’s argument remains that e.Digital should be bound by a
mistaken belief that certain cameras and camcorders use a Zoran processor (as opposed to
another brand of processor), as punishment for e.Digital’s allegedly deficient infringement
analysis.
mistaken belief that certain cameras and camcorders use a Zoran processor (as opposed to
another brand of processor), as punishment for e.Digital’s allegedly deficient infringement
analysis.
Importantly, Samsung does not dispute that the Zoran COACH processor was correctly
identified and is found in many of the accused Samsung cameras. Instead, Samsung’s argument
focuses on the other accused products for which the Zoran processor was incorrectly identified.
identified and is found in many of the accused Samsung cameras. Instead, Samsung’s argument
focuses on the other accused products for which the Zoran processor was incorrectly identified.
In fact, the 17 asserted claims do not require any specific processor (no less a Zoran
COACH processor, TI processor, Fujitsu processor or any other manufacturer’s processor) and
only mention the word “processor” once -- “control circuitry includes a Digital Support
Processor (DSP).” (See U.S. Patent No. 5,491,774 (the “‘774 Patent”) at claim 11). The specific
brand of processor used in the accused products is simply not relevant to the claims or e.Digital’s
theory of infringement. Indeed, pages and pages of Samsung’s arguments would have been
avoided if e.Digital had simply stated in its Initial Infringement Contentions that Samsung’s
products have “a processor” that carries out the “control circuitry” that allows audio data to be
recorded to and played back from flash memory, including “signal input circuitry,”
“amplification circuitry,” “analog-to-digital conversion circuitry,” “memory control circuitry,”
COACH processor, TI processor, Fujitsu processor or any other manufacturer’s processor) and
only mention the word “processor” once -- “control circuitry includes a Digital Support
Processor (DSP).” (See U.S. Patent No. 5,491,774 (the “‘774 Patent”) at claim 11). The specific
brand of processor used in the accused products is simply not relevant to the claims or e.Digital’s
theory of infringement. Indeed, pages and pages of Samsung’s arguments would have been
avoided if e.Digital had simply stated in its Initial Infringement Contentions that Samsung’s
products have “a processor” that carries out the “control circuitry” that allows audio data to be
recorded to and played back from flash memory, including “signal input circuitry,”
“amplification circuitry,” “analog-to-digital conversion circuitry,” “memory control circuitry,”
As these examples make clear, Samsung is trying to characterize this dispute as
something it is not. e.Digital is not the recalcitrant patent holder that is trying to shirk its Patent
Rule 3-1 disclosure obligations, as portrayed by Samsung. e.Digital has repeatedly responded in
good faith to Samsung’s requests for more detail, regardless of whether the requested detail is
required under Patent Rule 3-1. And now, Samsung attempts to use e.Digital’s willingness to
amend its disclosures against e.Digital. In other words, Samsung is and has demanded
amendments to the infringement contentions, while at the same time claiming that e.Digital’s
amendments are evidence of the deficiencies in e.Digital’s Initial Infringement Contentions. At
Samsung’s behest, e.Digital simply is playing the game of “you cannot win.”3
Samsung’s Motion should be denied to the extent that it is contrary to the relief to which
e.Digital consented at the March 4 meet-and-confer as provided in e.Digital’s proposed order.
3 Because Samsung’s final argument is substantively identical to the argument in its
Motion, it is not readdressed.
something it is not. e.Digital is not the recalcitrant patent holder that is trying to shirk its Patent
Rule 3-1 disclosure obligations, as portrayed by Samsung. e.Digital has repeatedly responded in
good faith to Samsung’s requests for more detail, regardless of whether the requested detail is
required under Patent Rule 3-1. And now, Samsung attempts to use e.Digital’s willingness to
amend its disclosures against e.Digital. In other words, Samsung is and has demanded
amendments to the infringement contentions, while at the same time claiming that e.Digital’s
amendments are evidence of the deficiencies in e.Digital’s Initial Infringement Contentions. At
Samsung’s behest, e.Digital simply is playing the game of “you cannot win.”3
Samsung’s Motion should be denied to the extent that it is contrary to the relief to which
e.Digital consented at the March 4 meet-and-confer as provided in e.Digital’s proposed order.
3 Because Samsung’s final argument is substantively identical to the argument in its
Motion, it is not readdressed.
15 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply