FWIW...
"Due to a clerical error in the Clerk's Office, the November 19, 2014 opinion in this appeal was not entered on the docket or served on the parties until December 30, 2014.The date to file a petition for rehearingis extended to February 13, 2015 pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 40(a). (akr) (Entered: 12/30/2014)”
We are still, IMO, being gamed to some degree. The SC court that granted the SPJ amendments and the CE order to defendants, is giving a wide latitude to the defendants post appeal ruling to petition for a re-hearing.
It's up to the defendants that have been given notice to this point to do as they see fit, that being, disregard the appeal ruling on some tactical ground ...or settle. I hope this process gets more and more expensive to discharge.
What those defendants now have to consider, are the legal authorities used in the recent claims construction ruling along with that final claims const. order.
... SNDK...it did not have 108 asserted against it....and its 737 action was stayed pending the appeal outcome….SNDK settled 774 after its “Motion to Apply Collateral Estoppel… on the merits of the the CE order.
...GoPro...it did not have 108 asserted against it or any others....and its 737 action was stayed pending the appeal outcome.
...Pantech...it had 108 asserted along with 774, 737...all actions stayed pending appeal out come….774 is a given post CE appeal
...Huawei... being the first issue to initiate the appeal process as a result of a dis-positive ruling with regard to SPJ, had 108 asserted along with 774, 170, 737.... This issue did not have its SPJ amended.
The ruling and order :
.” The Court hereby enters this Final Judgment as follows:
a) Judgment in favor ofHuaweion e.Digital's claims for infringement of claims 33 and 34 of the '774 patent, claims 2 and 5 of the '108 patent, and any other claims depending therefrom (Dkt# 1) as a result of the application of the Collateral Estoppel Order.
b) Dismissalwith prejudiceofe.Digital's claimsof patent infringement with respect to the '170 and '737 patents as asserted in the Complaint against the remaining defendants,Futurewei Technologies, Inc. and, Huawei Device USA, Inc.
c) Dismissalwith prejudiceof Futurewei Technologies, Inc. and Huawei Device USA, Inc.counter claims asserted in their June 12, 2013 answers as to the '170 and '737 patentsonly.(Dkt# 25, 27).
d)Dismissalwith prejudiceas to the Parties claims and counterclaims arising under the'737 and '170patents. Each Party shall bear its own costs and fees. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 10/7/2013.(aef) (Entered: 10/07/2013)”
====================================================
Itemc) Indicates that 170 and 737 are dismissedonly....however 108 and 774 are not....as related to (Dkt# 25, 27).
Futurewei Technologies, Inc. and Huawei Device USA, Inc. are retail outlets named in the initial action….and have to settle 108 …774 is a given post CE appeal.
Will they comes to terms and license FlashR components, or will they petition a rehearing?
Don't let the news media get out in front of you on this issue.
doni
