PACER Samsung AND 774 PATENT
in response to
by
Message: PACER Samsung
By reviewing of Samsung and e.DIGITAL pacers it appears all along the strategy
of DUANE MORRIS is based on patent 774.It is already disclosed by SAMSUNG
that e.DIGITAL shifted its theory for infringement products based on 774 patent.
Some of the following passages from several dockets are indicative of strong
connection of infringers products and their relation to this patent.
The significant variety of products and their distribution in mass
market are indicative of if we reach a settlement with SAMSUNG it will be indeed
a significant compensation for e.DIGITAL.
"Samsung also believes that e.Digital
has shifted its theory of infringement in each new version of its Infringement Contentions,
including the latest, served on February 20, 2009. "
e.Digital’s Investigation of the Accused Products The accused Samsung products are handheld recording/playback devices, which are alleged to infringe the patents-in-suit because they are capable of recording sound data onto flash memory as claimed in the asserted apparatus and method claims.
e.Digital’s Investigation of the Accused Pr oducts The accused Samsung products are handheld recording/playback devices, which are alleged to infringe t he patents-in-suit because they are capable of recording sound data onto flash memory as claimed in the asserted apparatus and method claims.
Indeed, the claims of the asserted patents are broad in scope and focus on the fundamental aspects of using flash memory to record and store audio data on handheld recording/playback devices such as modern cameras, camcorders, and mobile phones. e.Digital’s claim charts, therefore, identified the components of the accused products .
MAJORITY 110
OUT OF 136 INFRINGERS PRODUCTS OF SAMSUNG CAMERA AND ETC HAS BEEN USING ZORAN
COACH PROCESSOR “control circuitry includes a Digital Support
Processor (DSP).” (See U.S. Patent No. 5,491,774 (the “‘774 Patent”)
Processor (DSP).” (See U.S. Patent No. 5,491,774 (the “‘774 Patent”)
Importantly, Samsung does not dispute that the Zoran COACH processor was correctly
identified and is found in many of the accused Samsung cameras.
identified and is found in many of the accused Samsung cameras.
Currently, e.Digital has identified five camcorders that it first identified in February 2009 and that appear to be functionally equivalent to previously accused camcorders. Those five camcorders are identified in the Motion at footnote 10 and are discussed in footnote 9, supra. When e.Digital confirms that those products should be added to the list of accused products based on sales in the United States, it will seek leave of the Court to add them.
e.Digital first identified 71 of these 76 products on November 21 when it served its Initial Infringement Contentions.The new websites include: qctconnect.com, maxim-ic.com, qimonda.com, focus.ti.com, datasheetpro.com, datasheetcatalog.org, datasheetdir.com, kr.ic-on-line.cn, alldatasheet.com, datasheet4u.com, datasheetarchive.com, digchip.com, tw.ic-on-line.cn, ic-on-line.cn, cn.ic-on-line.cn, jp.ic-on-line.cn, ic-cn.com.cn, soft.laogu.com, nanya.com, and penguin.cz. Examples of the foregoing websites in foreign languages are attached as Ex. E to the Yungwirth Declaration. With respect to the five other products, e.Digital discovered those camcorders in February 2009 when it searched for service manuals on www.manualuniverse.com, as directed by Samsung. According to the service manuals and related product documentation for three of (Continued…)
8
three months later -- on February 20 and 25 -- when it provided sworn declarations from its employees in support of its allegation. e.Digital immediately informed Samsung that while the declarants’ allegations are contrary to e.Digital’s initial investigation, it agreed to remove the identified products from the list of accused products, until such time as “discovery shows that the products identified by Samsung were so ld, offered for sale or imported into the United States as e.Digital initially believed. . . .” (Yungwirth Decl. at Ex. F, p. 3).
8
three months later -- on February 20 and 25 -- when it provided sworn declarations from its employees in support of its allegation. e.Digital immediately informed Samsung that while the declarants’ allegations are contrary to e.Digital’s initial investigation, it agreed to remove the identified products from the list of accused products, until such time as “discovery shows that the products identified by Samsung were so ld, offered for sale or imported into the United States as e.Digital initially believed. . . .” (Yungwirth Decl. at Ex. F, p. 3).
AND FINALLY " Importantly, Samsung does not dispute that the Zoran COACH proc essor was correctly
identified and is found in many of the accused Samsung cameras."
identified and is found in many of the accused Samsung cameras."
13 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply