No such message found
Message: 737
Ok, i will say IMO, but this is an excerpt from the very last quarterly report 8/12/11 and in my opinion, if they had changed their mind, they would have to file another new SEC report, so YES, the court ruling on737 is still requested: (empasis plankton's)--
folks, the reason Falk keeps refering you to the filings...is because, ta da, the answers are there:
On June 28, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an Opinion and Order Regarding Claim Construction following a January 28, 2011 Markman hearing (a proceeding under U.S. patent law where both sides present to the Court their arguments on how they believe patent terms should be construed). The Opinion construed claim terms in United States Patent 5,491,774, one of the Company’s Flash-R patents, more narrowly than we had proposed. On July 28, 2011 the parties to the litigation filed a Joint Statement in Response to June 28, 2011 Order Regarding Claim Construction (the “Statement”) as required by the Opinion. The Statement proposes a plan to take future discovery to clarify infringement-related issues arising from the Court’s claim construction as outlined in the Opinion. The Statement also requests that the Court construe a claim term from a second Flash-R patent in the litigation. While we continue to evaluate future licensing and enforcement actions, the Order, the Statement and requested clarifications could negatively affect future licensing prospects.
4 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply