2 Milliarden $: Patriot Scientific gegen intel
| eröffnet am: | 18.03.04 14:29 von: | aida73 |
| neuester Beitrag: | 25.04.21 03:01 von: | Silkelwtpa |
| Anzahl Beiträge: | 3388 | |
| Leser gesamt: | 421891 | |
| davon Heute: | 24 | |
bewertet mit 17 Sternen |
||
|
|
||
03.11.04 17:27
#326
Eichi
Der hat halt voraus gedacht
Das Ding könnte heute in den USA noch steigen, vorhin war's bei 0,31$.
Die Kursgewinne vom letzten Donnerstag/Freitag sind wieder erloschen. Trotzdem ist keine richtige Bewegung bis jetzt zu erkennen. Im Gerichtstermin wird ein gewisser Charles Moore, ("ET AL." - ?) beklagt und nicht Intel direkt. Es handelt sich hier so wie's aussieht um einen ehemaligen Mitarbeiter, welcher ein Patent unerlaubt "mitnahm". Und dafür soll nun eine "gütliche Einigung" durch Gerichtsangebot erzielt werden.
Es ist keine richtige Aufmerksamkeit in der Öffentlichkeit bis jetzt zu erkennen. Es fehlen ferner besondere Pressemeldungen oder Firmenstellungnahmen zum Fall. Intel trifft insofern keine Schuld oder Verantwortung sondern nur diesem Charles Moore. Ob der nun 2 Mrd. US-$ Schadensersatz bezahlen kann, bleibt fraglich.
Die Kursgewinne vom letzten Donnerstag/Freitag sind wieder erloschen. Trotzdem ist keine richtige Bewegung bis jetzt zu erkennen. Im Gerichtstermin wird ein gewisser Charles Moore, ("ET AL." - ?) beklagt und nicht Intel direkt. Es handelt sich hier so wie's aussieht um einen ehemaligen Mitarbeiter, welcher ein Patent unerlaubt "mitnahm". Und dafür soll nun eine "gütliche Einigung" durch Gerichtsangebot erzielt werden.
Es ist keine richtige Aufmerksamkeit in der Öffentlichkeit bis jetzt zu erkennen. Es fehlen ferner besondere Pressemeldungen oder Firmenstellungnahmen zum Fall. Intel trifft insofern keine Schuld oder Verantwortung sondern nur diesem Charles Moore. Ob der nun 2 Mrd. US-$ Schadensersatz bezahlen kann, bleibt fraglich.
03.11.04 17:37
#327
Eichi
Dort drückt jemand den Kurs mit kleinen Trades
von 2000 oder 1000 Stücken. - Verdächtig -.
04.11.04 10:25
#328
Mischa
@eichi.sorry, aber deine infos über moore sind
nicht ganz richtig. lies dir bitte den patriot-thread auf w:o durch. da stehen alle infos. ;O)
nicht ganz richtig. lies dir bitte den patriot-thread auf w:o durch. da stehen alle infos. ;O)
04.11.04 10:50
#329
Mischa
über moore. geklaut von w:o
Mr. Moore war tatsächlich einmal Teilhaber an den Patentrechten, die nunmehr Patriot voll und ganz in eigenem Namen geltend macht.
Mr. Moore übertrug vor einiger Zeit diese Teilhaberrechte auf eine Firma, von der sie dann Patriot auf Umwegen durch Rechtsgeschäft erwarb!
Ursprünglich hatten die Rechtsbeistände von Patriot Mr. Moore gebeten, als Kläger an ihrer Seite gegen die Chip-Konzerne mit aufzutreten.
Das wollte Mr. Moore aber nicht, und ist deshalb von Patriot ebenfalls vorsorglich verklagt worden und ziert somit ebenfalls die Beklagtenbank.
Die Rechtsposition des Mr. Moore gilt als ausgesprochen schwach, weil Patriot den Erwerb der strittigen Rechte durch ein gültiges und rechtmässiges Rechtsgeschäft sicher nachweisen kann.
Für den Ausgang der vielleicht im Frühherbst stattfindenden Hearings im Rechtsstreit Intel gegen Patriot ist diese Frage ohne Relevanz, weil in diesem Verfahren Patriot die Beklagte darstellt und es im Rahmen der Zulässigkeit der Klage von Intel nur darauf ankommt zu klären, ob die Intel-Technologie auf der patentgeschützten Patriot-Technologie mehr oder weniger aufbaut, oder nicht.
Für die Klage Patriots gegen die Kunden von Intel kommt es dagegen sehr wohl auf diese Frage nach der vollständigen oder nur teilweisen Inhaberschaft der Patentrechte an.
Diese Fälle lassen sich erst dann entscheiden, wenn Patriot seine Patentrechtsstellung und damit auch sein Rechtsschutzbedürfnis gerichtlich sattelfest nachgewiesen hat.
Mr. Moore war tatsächlich einmal Teilhaber an den Patentrechten, die nunmehr Patriot voll und ganz in eigenem Namen geltend macht.Mr. Moore übertrug vor einiger Zeit diese Teilhaberrechte auf eine Firma, von der sie dann Patriot auf Umwegen durch Rechtsgeschäft erwarb!
Ursprünglich hatten die Rechtsbeistände von Patriot Mr. Moore gebeten, als Kläger an ihrer Seite gegen die Chip-Konzerne mit aufzutreten.
Das wollte Mr. Moore aber nicht, und ist deshalb von Patriot ebenfalls vorsorglich verklagt worden und ziert somit ebenfalls die Beklagtenbank.
Die Rechtsposition des Mr. Moore gilt als ausgesprochen schwach, weil Patriot den Erwerb der strittigen Rechte durch ein gültiges und rechtmässiges Rechtsgeschäft sicher nachweisen kann.
Für den Ausgang der vielleicht im Frühherbst stattfindenden Hearings im Rechtsstreit Intel gegen Patriot ist diese Frage ohne Relevanz, weil in diesem Verfahren Patriot die Beklagte darstellt und es im Rahmen der Zulässigkeit der Klage von Intel nur darauf ankommt zu klären, ob die Intel-Technologie auf der patentgeschützten Patriot-Technologie mehr oder weniger aufbaut, oder nicht.
Für die Klage Patriots gegen die Kunden von Intel kommt es dagegen sehr wohl auf diese Frage nach der vollständigen oder nur teilweisen Inhaberschaft der Patentrechte an.
Diese Fälle lassen sich erst dann entscheiden, wenn Patriot seine Patentrechtsstellung und damit auch sein Rechtsschutzbedürfnis gerichtlich sattelfest nachgewiesen hat.
04.11.04 18:47
#333
Mischa
da legt sich einer zu 0,035 einen haufen zu
im amiland. warum? er könnte sich doch auch zu den anderen mm´s bei 0,03 ins bid stellen? sollte die nächsten tage doch mal wieder etwas bewegung rein kommen? fragen über fragen.
im amiland. warum? er könnte sich doch auch zu den anderen mm´s bei 0,03 ins bid stellen? sollte die nächsten tage doch mal wieder etwas bewegung rein kommen? fragen über fragen.
04.11.04 23:53
#334
timm
stand der dinge
Ich wollte mal hier für alle Interessierten eine kleine Klagebesprechung, und zwar bezüglich des Falles Moore, abhalten und habe deshalb zum leichteren Verständnis die Klage unserer Jungs hier einmal in voller Pracht und in Kursivschrift hereingestellt.
BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER Alan R. Plutzik (Bar No. 077785) Daniel E. Birkhaeuser (Bar No. 136646) L. Timothy Fisher (Bar No. 191626) 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, California 94598 Telephone: (925) 945-0200
BEATIE AND OSBORN LLP
Russel H. Beatie (Admitted pro hac vice) Curt D. Marshall (Admitted pro hac vice) 521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
New York, New York 10175
Telephone: (212) 888-9000
Of Counsel: John E. Lynch (Admitted pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
X
:
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, :
: Civil Action No.
Plaintiff, : C 03 5787 (SBA/WDB) :
v. :
: CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
FUJITSU COMPUTER SYSTEMS CORP- : COMPLAINT FOR
ORATION, MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC : PATENT INFRINGEMENT
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NEC :
SOLUTIONS (AMERICA), INC., SONY :
ELECTRONICS INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA, :
INC., CHARLES H. MOORE, TECHNOLOGY : [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
PROPERTIES LTD., and DANIEL E. :
LECKRONE, :
:
Defendants. :
:
X
Plaintiff Patriot Scientific Corporation (" Patriot " ), by its attorneys, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP and Beatie and Osborn LLP, for its Consolidated Amended Complaint (" Complaint" ) against defendants Fujitsu Computer Systems Corporation (" Fujitsu" ), Matsushita Electric Corporation of America
(" Matsushita" ), NEC Solutions (America), Inc. (" NEC" ), Sony Electronics Inc. (" Sony" ), Toshiba America, Inc. (" Toshiba" ) (collectively, " Infringing Defendants" ), Charles H. Moore (" Moore" ), Technology Properties Ltd. (" TPL" ), and Daniel E. Leckrone (" Leckrone" ), alleges:
1. This is a civil action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq., and for declaratory judgment for determination and correction of inventorship and ownership of a patent and its family of patents pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and 35 U.S.C. §§ 116 and 256.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Patriot is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; maintains its principal place of business at 10989 Via Frontera, San Diego, California; and is engaged in the business of developing and owning intellectual property, integrated circuits, and systems level engineering.
3. Patriot is the named assignee of United States Patent No. 5,809,336 entitled " HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSOR HAVING VARIABLE SPEED SYSTEM CLOCK" (" '336 Patent" ).
4. Defendant Fujitsu maintains its principal place of business at 1250 East Arques Avenue, M/S 122, Sunnyvale, California 94085; and is engaged in the business of, among other things, providing semiconductor products and services for networking, communications, automotive, security, and other markets throughout the United States, including the State of California.
5. Defendant Matsushita maintains its principal place
of business at One Panasonic Way, Secaucus, New Jersey; and is engaged in the business of the manufacture and sale of consumer, business, and industrial products in the United States, including the State of California.
6. Defendant NEC maintains its principal place of business at 10850 Gold Center Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670; and is engaged in the business of the manufacture of communications, computers and electronic components in the United States, including the State of California.
7. Defendant Sony maintains its principal place of business at 1 Sony Drive, Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656; and is engaged in the business of, among other things, the manufacture of audio, video, communications, and information technology products for consumer and professional markets in the United States, including the State of California.
8. Defendant Toshiba maintains its principal place of business at 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York; and is engaged in the business of, among other things, marketing and manufacturing information and communication systems, electronic components, heavy electrical apparatus, consumer products, and medical diagnostic imaging equipment in the United States, including the State of California.
9. Defendant Moore is an individual, resides at 40 Cedar Lane, Sierra City, California, and through his agent has asserted a claim of partial ownership and co-inventorship of the '336 Patent.
10. Defendant TPL maintains its principal place of business in San Jose, California, is engaged in the business of
selling and licensing intellectual property, and through its agent has asserted a claim of partial ownership of the '336 Patent.
11. Defendant Leckrone is an individual, is Chairman of TPL, resides at 4010 Moorpark Avenue, #215, San Jose, California, and has asserted, on behalf of Moore and TPL, a claim of partial ownership of the '336 Patent.
12. Pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on January 28, 2004, Patriot invited Moore, TPL, and Leckrone to join the litigation voluntarily as co-plaintiffs with Patriot; but they declined. Therefore, Patriot has joined them as defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States and under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
14. As required by Article III of the United States Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, an actual controversy exists between Patriot and defendants Moore, TPL, and Leckrone over the inventorship and ownership of the '336 Patent. The proper assertion of these rights are critical to the enforcement of the patent and the validity of the patent.
15. Patriot claims sole ownership of all right, title, and interest in the '336 Patent; but through defendant Leckrone defendants Moore, TPL, and Leckrone claim partial inventorship and partial ownership of the '336 Patent, claim to be co-owners of the '336 Patent with Patriot, and demand compensation for their
interest in the '336 Patent.
16. This action is properly venued in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (c) and 1400 (b) because defendants reside in or do business in this district; and/or committed acts of patent infringement in this district.
17. In addition, on February 18, 2004, the Infringing Defendants consented by Stipulation to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. A copy of the Stipulation is attached as Exhibit A.
RELATED ACTIONS
18. This action is related to the actions titled Patriot Scientific Corporation v. Moore, et al., No. C 04 0618 JCS, and Intel Corporation v. Patriot Scientific Corporation, No. C 04 0439 JCS, which are pending in the Oakland Division of this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
19. On September 15, 1998, the Patent and Trademark Office issued the ' 336 Patent naming Moore and Russell H. Fish, III (" Fish" ), as inventors and Patriot as assignee. A copy of the '336 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
20. Fish solely conceptualized the technology claimed by the '336 Patent and solely owned the rights, title, and interest in the '336 Patent.
21. Fish assigned the '336 Patent to the Fish Family Trust, the Fish Family Trust assigned the '336 Patent to Nanotronics Corporation (" Nanotronics" ), and Nanotronics assigned the '336 Patent to Patriot.
22. These assignments were duly recorded in the United
F:\CLIENT\Patriot Scientific (1133.0001)\Consolidated Amended Complaint.wpd 5
005852/0465, recorded September 26, 1991; Reel/Frame 005978/0672, recorded January 21, 1992; and Reel/Frame 008194/0013, recorded October 28, 1996.
23. Patriot is therefore sole owner of all right, title, and interest in the '336 Patent, including the right to bring this action for injunctive relief and damages.
24. Through defendant Leckrone defendants Moore, TPL, and Leckrone have asserted a claim for partial inventorship and partial ownership of the '336 Patent and claim to be co-owners of the '336 Patent with Patriot.
25. Through Leckrone, defendants TPL and Leckrone assert that Moore assigned an ownership interest in the ' 336 Patent to TPL and Leckrone.
26. Patriot disputes the claims of inventorship and ownership by Moore and partial ownership by TPL and Leckrone and requests this Court to resolve the issues of inventorship and ownership.
27. The Infringing Defendants have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed within the United States, including specifically within the State of California, computers, laptop computers, and/or server systems which include but are not limited to the following:
Fujitsu:
C Series; E7000; E2000;
S6000; CELSIUS; and
Stylistic ST4000 (" Fujitsu Products" )
Matsushita:
Toughbook 01; Toughbook 07; Toughbook 18; Toughbook 28; Toughbook 34; Toughbook 48; Toughbook 50; Toughbook 72; Toughbook R1; Toughbook T1; DMR-HS2;
DMR-E80H;
DMR-E60S;
DMR-E30K;
DMR-E30S;
DMR-E50K; and
DMR-E50S (" Matsushita Products" )
NEC:
Versa LitePad;
MobilePro P300;
MobilePro 790; and
Versa E120 DayLite (" NEC Products" )
Sony:
VAIO V505A Series;
VAIO PCG-GRX700 CTO - LP4M; VAIO PCG-GRX700 CTO - Power; VAIO PCG-GRX700 CTO - Works; VAIO PCG-GRS700 CTO - LP4M; VAIO PCG-GRS700 CTO - Basic; VAIO PCG-GRS700 CTO - Power; VAIO RZ simple;
VAIO RZ gamer;
VAIO RZ UDL;
VAIO W Series;
RDR-GX7;
DAV-C990; and
SLV-D300P (" Sony Products" )
Toshiba: Satellite A10;
Satellite A35; Satellite M30; Satellite P10; Satellite P25; Tecra S1;
Portege M100; Portege 3500; and
Portege R100 (" Toshiba Products" ).
28. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, in accordance with the principles and claims of the '336 Patent.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Declaratory Judgment For
Determination and Correction of Inventorship]
29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
30. Patriot disputes the claims of inventorship by Moore of the '336 Patent and requests this Court to resolve the issue of inventorship.
31. A judicial declaration correcting inventorship of the '336 Patent is necessary so that Patriot can enforce its rights with respect to that patent against the Infringing Defendants.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Declaratory Judgment For
Determination and Correction of Ownership]
32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
33. Patriot disputes the claims of partial ownership by Moore, TPL, and Leckrone of the '336 Patent and requests this Court to resolve the issue of ownership.
34. A judicial declaration about the ownership of the '336 Patent is necessary so that Patriot can enforce its rights with respect to that patent against the Infringing Defendants.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)]
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
36. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed within the United States, including specifically within California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, and which directly infringe one or more claims of the '336 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
37. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and
Toshiba have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed and continue to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and/or distribute within the United States, including specifically California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, that come within a range of equivalents of the claims of the '336 Patent, and therefore infringe one or more claims of the '336 Patent.
38. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed within the United States, including specifically California, infringing devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, without authority or license from Patriot, and in violation of Patriot's rights, and therefore infringe the '336 Patent.
39. The unlawful infringing activity by the Infringing Defendants is continuing and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
40. The Infringing Defendants have had actual knowledge of the '336 Patent and have willfully, deliberately, and intentionally infringed the claims of the '336 Patent.
41. The acts of infringement by the Infringing Defendants have damaged Patriot and unless the infringement is enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will suffer further damage.
42. The amount of money damages suffered by Patriot from
the acts of infringement by Infringing Defendants cannot be determined without discovery, and is, therefore, subject to proof at trial.
43. Patriot is entitled to a complete accounting of all revenue derived by the Infringing Defendants from the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint. In addition, the harm to Patriot from the Infringing Defendants' acts of infringement is not fully compensable by money damages.
44. Patriot has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm, has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the Infringing Defendants' conduct is enjoined. Patriot, therefore, also requests a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction at the entry of judgment, to prevent additional infringement.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 [Inducement of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)]
45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
46. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have actively induced, and are now inducing, infringement of the '336 Patent by selling within the United States, including specifically California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, and teaching users to use those devices and/or systems in a manner
which infringes one or more claims of the '336 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b) .
47. The Infringing Defendants have unlawfully derived, and continue to derive, income and profits by inducing others to infringe the '336 Patent; and Patriot has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages because of the Infringing Defendants' inducement to infringe the '336 Patent.
48. Patriot has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable damage for which it has no adequate remedy at law because of the Infringing Defendants' inducement of others to infringe the '336 Patent, and will continue to be harmed unless the Infringing Defendants are enjoined from further acts of inducement.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)]
49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
50. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have offered to sell or have sold within the United States components of the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, claimed in the ' 336 Patent, and apparatus for use in practicing the processes claimed in the '336 Patent.
51. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), the components and apparatus constitute a material part of the inventions in the '336 Patent and were especially made or especially adapted for use
in an infringement of the ' 336 Patent and were not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
52. The Infringing Defendants will continue to contribute to the infringement of the '336 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.
53. The Infringing Defendants have derived, and continue to derive, unlawful profits by contributing to the infringement of the '336 Patent, and Patriot has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages because of the Infringing Defendants' contributory infringement of the '336 Patent.
54. Patriot has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm because of the Infringing Defendants' contributory infringement of the '336 Patent, unless the Infringing Defendants are enjoined from further contributory infringement.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Patriot respectfully prays for an order:
(a) adjudging Fish the sole inventor of the ' 336 Patent;
(b) adjudging Patriot the sole owner of the ' 336 Patent;
(c) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 116 and 256, directing the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue certificates correcting the inventorship and ownership of the '336 Patent;
(d) adjudging U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 valid, enforceable, and infringed by the Infringing Defendants;
(e) permanently enjoining the Infringing Defendants, their representatives, assignees or successors, or any subsidiaries, divisions, agents, servants, employees of the defendant, and/or those in privity with the Infringing Defendants from infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and inducing infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336, and for all further and proper injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
(f) directing the Infringing Defendants to account for all revenue derived from the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint;
(g) awarding plaintiff Patriot monetary damages from the Infringing Defendants for past infringement, including but not limited to a reasonable royalty, plus applicable pre- and postjudgment interest, and costs to which plaintiff is entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 284, as well as attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or other applicable law;
(h) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, awarding up to treble damages for willful, deliberate, and intentional infringement by the Infringing Defendants; and
(i) granting any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury on all triable issues pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By:
Alan R. Plutzik
Daniel E. Birkhaeuser L. Timothy Fisher
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, California 94598 Telephone: (925) 945-0200 Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
BEATIE AND OSBORN LLP
Russel H. Beatie
(Admitted pro hac vice)
Curt D. Marshall
(Admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff
521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, New York 10175 Telephone: (212) 888-9000 Facsimile: (212) 888-9664
Of Counsel: John E. Lynch (Admitted pro hac vice)
Die Frage, über die das Gericht insoweit Recht zu sprechen hat, ist einfach ausgedrückt nur die, ob das Patentrecht Nr.336 vollwirksam und rechtsgültig auf Patriot Scientific übergegangen ist, so dass es daraus Rechtsansprüche gegen Intel usw. herleiten kann.
Zur Einschätzung diesbezüglicher Erfolgsaussichten schauen wir uns jetzt einmal in der gut gegliederten Klage die entscheidenden Passagen näher an:
Diese sind mit den Nummern 19 bis 21 gekennzeichnet!
Dort heisst es:
19.On September 15, 1998, the Patent and Trademark Office issued the ' 336 Patent naming Moore and Russell H. Fish, III (" Fish" ), as inventors and Patriot as assignee. A copy of the '336 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
20.Fish solely conceptualized the technology claimed by the '336 Patent and solely owned the rights, title, and interest in the '336 Patent.
21. Fish assigned the '336 Patent to the Fish Family Trust, the Fish Family Trust assigned the '336 Patent to Nanotronics Corporation (" Nanotronics" ), and Nanotronics assigned the '336 Patent to Patriot.
Dem geneigten Leser fällt auf, dass das betreffende Patent insgesamt dreimal! unter jeweils gültig beurkundeter Mitwirkung des US-Patentamtes übertragen wurde.
Sämtliche Rechtsvorschriften wurden dabei penibel beachtet!
Das Patent wurde zunächst von Fish auf den Fish Family Trust, von dort an Nanotronics und von dort schliesslich auf Patriot Scientific übertragen.
Bei keiner dieser Übertragungen wurde übrigens ein entsprechender Protest von seiten Moores protokolliert!
Wenn das Gericht bzw. die mit der Urteilsfindung betraute Jury aufgrund dieser Sachlage nun entscheiden soll, wie wird sie entscheiden?
Würde sie Moore im Ergebnis ein nach wie vor bestehendes Anteilsrecht an dem Patent Nr. 336 zubilligen, dann hiesse das gleichzeitig, dass das US-Patentamt bezüglich der Übertragung gleich dreimal " Mist gebaut" hätte!
Denkt und schlaft mal drüber!
BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER Alan R. Plutzik (Bar No. 077785) Daniel E. Birkhaeuser (Bar No. 136646) L. Timothy Fisher (Bar No. 191626) 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, California 94598 Telephone: (925) 945-0200
BEATIE AND OSBORN LLP
Russel H. Beatie (Admitted pro hac vice) Curt D. Marshall (Admitted pro hac vice) 521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
New York, New York 10175
Telephone: (212) 888-9000
Of Counsel: John E. Lynch (Admitted pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
X
:
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, :
: Civil Action No.
Plaintiff, : C 03 5787 (SBA/WDB) :
v. :
: CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
FUJITSU COMPUTER SYSTEMS CORP- : COMPLAINT FOR
ORATION, MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC : PATENT INFRINGEMENT
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NEC :
SOLUTIONS (AMERICA), INC., SONY :
ELECTRONICS INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA, :
INC., CHARLES H. MOORE, TECHNOLOGY : [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
PROPERTIES LTD., and DANIEL E. :
LECKRONE, :
:
Defendants. :
:
X
Plaintiff Patriot Scientific Corporation (" Patriot " ), by its attorneys, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP and Beatie and Osborn LLP, for its Consolidated Amended Complaint (" Complaint" ) against defendants Fujitsu Computer Systems Corporation (" Fujitsu" ), Matsushita Electric Corporation of America
(" Matsushita" ), NEC Solutions (America), Inc. (" NEC" ), Sony Electronics Inc. (" Sony" ), Toshiba America, Inc. (" Toshiba" ) (collectively, " Infringing Defendants" ), Charles H. Moore (" Moore" ), Technology Properties Ltd. (" TPL" ), and Daniel E. Leckrone (" Leckrone" ), alleges:
1. This is a civil action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq., and for declaratory judgment for determination and correction of inventorship and ownership of a patent and its family of patents pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and 35 U.S.C. §§ 116 and 256.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Patriot is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; maintains its principal place of business at 10989 Via Frontera, San Diego, California; and is engaged in the business of developing and owning intellectual property, integrated circuits, and systems level engineering.
3. Patriot is the named assignee of United States Patent No. 5,809,336 entitled " HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSOR HAVING VARIABLE SPEED SYSTEM CLOCK" (" '336 Patent" ).
4. Defendant Fujitsu maintains its principal place of business at 1250 East Arques Avenue, M/S 122, Sunnyvale, California 94085; and is engaged in the business of, among other things, providing semiconductor products and services for networking, communications, automotive, security, and other markets throughout the United States, including the State of California.
5. Defendant Matsushita maintains its principal place
of business at One Panasonic Way, Secaucus, New Jersey; and is engaged in the business of the manufacture and sale of consumer, business, and industrial products in the United States, including the State of California.
6. Defendant NEC maintains its principal place of business at 10850 Gold Center Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, California 95670; and is engaged in the business of the manufacture of communications, computers and electronic components in the United States, including the State of California.
7. Defendant Sony maintains its principal place of business at 1 Sony Drive, Park Ridge, New Jersey 07656; and is engaged in the business of, among other things, the manufacture of audio, video, communications, and information technology products for consumer and professional markets in the United States, including the State of California.
8. Defendant Toshiba maintains its principal place of business at 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York; and is engaged in the business of, among other things, marketing and manufacturing information and communication systems, electronic components, heavy electrical apparatus, consumer products, and medical diagnostic imaging equipment in the United States, including the State of California.
9. Defendant Moore is an individual, resides at 40 Cedar Lane, Sierra City, California, and through his agent has asserted a claim of partial ownership and co-inventorship of the '336 Patent.
10. Defendant TPL maintains its principal place of business in San Jose, California, is engaged in the business of
selling and licensing intellectual property, and through its agent has asserted a claim of partial ownership of the '336 Patent.
11. Defendant Leckrone is an individual, is Chairman of TPL, resides at 4010 Moorpark Avenue, #215, San Jose, California, and has asserted, on behalf of Moore and TPL, a claim of partial ownership of the '336 Patent.
12. Pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on January 28, 2004, Patriot invited Moore, TPL, and Leckrone to join the litigation voluntarily as co-plaintiffs with Patriot; but they declined. Therefore, Patriot has joined them as defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States and under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
14. As required by Article III of the United States Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, an actual controversy exists between Patriot and defendants Moore, TPL, and Leckrone over the inventorship and ownership of the '336 Patent. The proper assertion of these rights are critical to the enforcement of the patent and the validity of the patent.
15. Patriot claims sole ownership of all right, title, and interest in the '336 Patent; but through defendant Leckrone defendants Moore, TPL, and Leckrone claim partial inventorship and partial ownership of the '336 Patent, claim to be co-owners of the '336 Patent with Patriot, and demand compensation for their
interest in the '336 Patent.
16. This action is properly venued in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (c) and 1400 (b) because defendants reside in or do business in this district; and/or committed acts of patent infringement in this district.
17. In addition, on February 18, 2004, the Infringing Defendants consented by Stipulation to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. A copy of the Stipulation is attached as Exhibit A.
RELATED ACTIONS
18. This action is related to the actions titled Patriot Scientific Corporation v. Moore, et al., No. C 04 0618 JCS, and Intel Corporation v. Patriot Scientific Corporation, No. C 04 0439 JCS, which are pending in the Oakland Division of this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
19. On September 15, 1998, the Patent and Trademark Office issued the ' 336 Patent naming Moore and Russell H. Fish, III (" Fish" ), as inventors and Patriot as assignee. A copy of the '336 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
20. Fish solely conceptualized the technology claimed by the '336 Patent and solely owned the rights, title, and interest in the '336 Patent.
21. Fish assigned the '336 Patent to the Fish Family Trust, the Fish Family Trust assigned the '336 Patent to Nanotronics Corporation (" Nanotronics" ), and Nanotronics assigned the '336 Patent to Patriot.
22. These assignments were duly recorded in the United
F:\CLIENT\Patriot Scientific (1133.0001)\Consolidated Amended Complaint.wpd 5
005852/0465, recorded September 26, 1991; Reel/Frame 005978/0672, recorded January 21, 1992; and Reel/Frame 008194/0013, recorded October 28, 1996.
23. Patriot is therefore sole owner of all right, title, and interest in the '336 Patent, including the right to bring this action for injunctive relief and damages.
24. Through defendant Leckrone defendants Moore, TPL, and Leckrone have asserted a claim for partial inventorship and partial ownership of the '336 Patent and claim to be co-owners of the '336 Patent with Patriot.
25. Through Leckrone, defendants TPL and Leckrone assert that Moore assigned an ownership interest in the ' 336 Patent to TPL and Leckrone.
26. Patriot disputes the claims of inventorship and ownership by Moore and partial ownership by TPL and Leckrone and requests this Court to resolve the issues of inventorship and ownership.
27. The Infringing Defendants have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed within the United States, including specifically within the State of California, computers, laptop computers, and/or server systems which include but are not limited to the following:
Fujitsu:
C Series; E7000; E2000;
S6000; CELSIUS; and
Stylistic ST4000 (" Fujitsu Products" )
Matsushita:
Toughbook 01; Toughbook 07; Toughbook 18; Toughbook 28; Toughbook 34; Toughbook 48; Toughbook 50; Toughbook 72; Toughbook R1; Toughbook T1; DMR-HS2;
DMR-E80H;
DMR-E60S;
DMR-E30K;
DMR-E30S;
DMR-E50K; and
DMR-E50S (" Matsushita Products" )
NEC:
Versa LitePad;
MobilePro P300;
MobilePro 790; and
Versa E120 DayLite (" NEC Products" )
Sony:
VAIO V505A Series;
VAIO PCG-GRX700 CTO - LP4M; VAIO PCG-GRX700 CTO - Power; VAIO PCG-GRX700 CTO - Works; VAIO PCG-GRS700 CTO - LP4M; VAIO PCG-GRS700 CTO - Basic; VAIO PCG-GRS700 CTO - Power; VAIO RZ simple;
VAIO RZ gamer;
VAIO RZ UDL;
VAIO W Series;
RDR-GX7;
DAV-C990; and
SLV-D300P (" Sony Products" )
Toshiba: Satellite A10;
Satellite A35; Satellite M30; Satellite P10; Satellite P25; Tecra S1;
Portege M100; Portege 3500; and
Portege R100 (" Toshiba Products" ).
28. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, in accordance with the principles and claims of the '336 Patent.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Declaratory Judgment For
Determination and Correction of Inventorship]
29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
30. Patriot disputes the claims of inventorship by Moore of the '336 Patent and requests this Court to resolve the issue of inventorship.
31. A judicial declaration correcting inventorship of the '336 Patent is necessary so that Patriot can enforce its rights with respect to that patent against the Infringing Defendants.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Declaratory Judgment For
Determination and Correction of Ownership]
32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
33. Patriot disputes the claims of partial ownership by Moore, TPL, and Leckrone of the '336 Patent and requests this Court to resolve the issue of ownership.
34. A judicial declaration about the ownership of the '336 Patent is necessary so that Patriot can enforce its rights with respect to that patent against the Infringing Defendants.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)]
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
36. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed within the United States, including specifically within California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, and which directly infringe one or more claims of the '336 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
37. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and
Toshiba have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed and continue to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and/or distribute within the United States, including specifically California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, that come within a range of equivalents of the claims of the '336 Patent, and therefore infringe one or more claims of the '336 Patent.
38. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have made, used, sold, offered to sell, imported, and/or distributed within the United States, including specifically California, infringing devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, without authority or license from Patriot, and in violation of Patriot's rights, and therefore infringe the '336 Patent.
39. The unlawful infringing activity by the Infringing Defendants is continuing and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
40. The Infringing Defendants have had actual knowledge of the '336 Patent and have willfully, deliberately, and intentionally infringed the claims of the '336 Patent.
41. The acts of infringement by the Infringing Defendants have damaged Patriot and unless the infringement is enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will suffer further damage.
42. The amount of money damages suffered by Patriot from
the acts of infringement by Infringing Defendants cannot be determined without discovery, and is, therefore, subject to proof at trial.
43. Patriot is entitled to a complete accounting of all revenue derived by the Infringing Defendants from the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint. In addition, the harm to Patriot from the Infringing Defendants' acts of infringement is not fully compensable by money damages.
44. Patriot has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm, has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the Infringing Defendants' conduct is enjoined. Patriot, therefore, also requests a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction at the entry of judgment, to prevent additional infringement.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 [Inducement of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)]
45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
46. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have actively induced, and are now inducing, infringement of the '336 Patent by selling within the United States, including specifically California, devices and/or systems which include but are not limited to the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, and teaching users to use those devices and/or systems in a manner
which infringes one or more claims of the '336 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b) .
47. The Infringing Defendants have unlawfully derived, and continue to derive, income and profits by inducing others to infringe the '336 Patent; and Patriot has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages because of the Infringing Defendants' inducement to infringe the '336 Patent.
48. Patriot has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable damage for which it has no adequate remedy at law because of the Infringing Defendants' inducement of others to infringe the '336 Patent, and will continue to be harmed unless the Infringing Defendants are enjoined from further acts of inducement.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)]
49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as if they were set forth here in full.
50. Defendants Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC, Sony, and Toshiba have offered to sell or have sold within the United States components of the Fujitsu Products, Matsushita Products, NEC Products, Sony Products, and Toshiba Products, respectively, claimed in the ' 336 Patent, and apparatus for use in practicing the processes claimed in the '336 Patent.
51. In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), the components and apparatus constitute a material part of the inventions in the '336 Patent and were especially made or especially adapted for use
in an infringement of the ' 336 Patent and were not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
52. The Infringing Defendants will continue to contribute to the infringement of the '336 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.
53. The Infringing Defendants have derived, and continue to derive, unlawful profits by contributing to the infringement of the '336 Patent, and Patriot has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages because of the Infringing Defendants' contributory infringement of the '336 Patent.
54. Patriot has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm because of the Infringing Defendants' contributory infringement of the '336 Patent, unless the Infringing Defendants are enjoined from further contributory infringement.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Patriot respectfully prays for an order:
(a) adjudging Fish the sole inventor of the ' 336 Patent;
(b) adjudging Patriot the sole owner of the ' 336 Patent;
(c) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 116 and 256, directing the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue certificates correcting the inventorship and ownership of the '336 Patent;
(d) adjudging U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 valid, enforceable, and infringed by the Infringing Defendants;
(e) permanently enjoining the Infringing Defendants, their representatives, assignees or successors, or any subsidiaries, divisions, agents, servants, employees of the defendant, and/or those in privity with the Infringing Defendants from infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and inducing infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336, and for all further and proper injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
(f) directing the Infringing Defendants to account for all revenue derived from the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint;
(g) awarding plaintiff Patriot monetary damages from the Infringing Defendants for past infringement, including but not limited to a reasonable royalty, plus applicable pre- and postjudgment interest, and costs to which plaintiff is entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 284, as well as attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or other applicable law;
(h) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, awarding up to treble damages for willful, deliberate, and intentional infringement by the Infringing Defendants; and
(i) granting any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury on all triable issues pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
By:
Alan R. Plutzik
Daniel E. Birkhaeuser L. Timothy Fisher
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, California 94598 Telephone: (925) 945-0200 Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
BEATIE AND OSBORN LLP
Russel H. Beatie
(Admitted pro hac vice)
Curt D. Marshall
(Admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff
521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, New York 10175 Telephone: (212) 888-9000 Facsimile: (212) 888-9664
Of Counsel: John E. Lynch (Admitted pro hac vice)
Die Frage, über die das Gericht insoweit Recht zu sprechen hat, ist einfach ausgedrückt nur die, ob das Patentrecht Nr.336 vollwirksam und rechtsgültig auf Patriot Scientific übergegangen ist, so dass es daraus Rechtsansprüche gegen Intel usw. herleiten kann.
Zur Einschätzung diesbezüglicher Erfolgsaussichten schauen wir uns jetzt einmal in der gut gegliederten Klage die entscheidenden Passagen näher an:
Diese sind mit den Nummern 19 bis 21 gekennzeichnet!
Dort heisst es:
19.On September 15, 1998, the Patent and Trademark Office issued the ' 336 Patent naming Moore and Russell H. Fish, III (" Fish" ), as inventors and Patriot as assignee. A copy of the '336 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
20.Fish solely conceptualized the technology claimed by the '336 Patent and solely owned the rights, title, and interest in the '336 Patent.
21. Fish assigned the '336 Patent to the Fish Family Trust, the Fish Family Trust assigned the '336 Patent to Nanotronics Corporation (" Nanotronics" ), and Nanotronics assigned the '336 Patent to Patriot.
Dem geneigten Leser fällt auf, dass das betreffende Patent insgesamt dreimal! unter jeweils gültig beurkundeter Mitwirkung des US-Patentamtes übertragen wurde.
Sämtliche Rechtsvorschriften wurden dabei penibel beachtet!
Das Patent wurde zunächst von Fish auf den Fish Family Trust, von dort an Nanotronics und von dort schliesslich auf Patriot Scientific übertragen.
Bei keiner dieser Übertragungen wurde übrigens ein entsprechender Protest von seiten Moores protokolliert!
Wenn das Gericht bzw. die mit der Urteilsfindung betraute Jury aufgrund dieser Sachlage nun entscheiden soll, wie wird sie entscheiden?
Würde sie Moore im Ergebnis ein nach wie vor bestehendes Anteilsrecht an dem Patent Nr. 336 zubilligen, dann hiesse das gleichzeitig, dass das US-Patentamt bezüglich der Übertragung gleich dreimal " Mist gebaut" hätte!
Denkt und schlaft mal drüber!
11.11.04 12:48
#336
Possibility
schon gelesen ?
Gruß
Bernd
Patriot Scientific Rejects Offer for Microprocessor Patent Portfolio
SAN DIEGO, Calif. - PRNewswire-FirstCall - Nov. 11SAN DIEGO, Calif., Nov. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Patriot Scientific Corporation (BULLETIN BOARD: PTSC) said today that the company has declined an offer from Relational Advisors LLC (http://www.relationalgroup.com/ ) for the sale of its critical microprocessor patents that are believed to be in widespread industry use.
Relational Advisors told the company that it represents Technology Properties Limited (TPL), Daniel Leckrone and Charles Moore in their effort to obtain PTSC ownership of patents US5809336, 6598148, 5440749, 5604915, 5530890, 5784584 and 5659703. PTSC's management and board deemed the $7.5 million dollar offer and related royalty-sharing scheme inadequate for the intellectual property held by PTSC. The company estimates the value to exceed $1 billion.
Relational Advisors, an investment fund with $3 billon under management, continues to pursue avenues to obtain the microprocessor technology held by PTSC. PTSC is the plaintiff in a lawsuit against TPL, Daniel Leckrone and Charles Moore that involves the patents and is expected to go to trial in early 2005.
PTSC is in receipt of a demand letter from NuVen Ltd., an affiliate company of TPL and a recent PTSC shareholder, to provide investment agreements, shareholder agreements, shareholder lists, board minutes and other documents. NuVen is represented by the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP of Palo Alto.
Patriot Scientific President and CEO Jeff Wallin said, "The recent activities of Relational Advisors and NuVen serve to validate the significant value of the PTSC patent portfolio. We are making every effort to realize the true value of our intellectual property for the benefit of all of our shareholders."
About Patriot Scientific
Patriot Scientific is an intellectual property company, developing and marketing innovative and proprietary semiconductor technologies into the fast- growing handheld wireless and smart card markets. The company's portfolio of patents encompasses what is believed to be fundamental microprocessor technology and includes additional patents pending to protect its technology and architecture.
For Patriot Scientific information, contact Lowell Giffhorn at (858) 674-5018. Detailed information about Patriot Scientific can be found on the website http://www.ptsc.com/ . Copies of Patriot Scientific press releases, current price quotes, stock charts and other valuable information for investors may be found on the websites http://www.hawkassociates.com/ and http://www.hawkmicrocaps.com/ .
An investment profile on Patriot Scientific may be found at http://www.hawkassociates.com/patriot/profile.htm .
For investor relations information contact Frank Hawkins or Julie Marshall, Hawk Associates, at (305) 852-2383, e-mail: info@hawkassociates.com .
Safe Harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Patriot Scientific CorporationWeb site: http://www.ptsc.com/
http://www.hawkassociates.com/
http://www.hawkmicrocaps.com/
http://www.hawkassociates.com/patriot/profile.htm
http://www.relationalgroup.com/
Gruß
Bernd
11.11.04 13:08
#337
Mischa
Hammer. Die schätzen den Wert der Patente auf
eine Milliarde? Habe ich das richtig gelesen? Na, wenn dat keinen Aufschwung bringt,...zumindest kurzfristig. Und sie haben das Angebot von 7,5 Mille ausgeschlagen. mssen ja echt überzeugt sein, die Anwälte von Patriot. ;O)
eine Milliarde? Habe ich das richtig gelesen? Na, wenn dat keinen Aufschwung bringt,...zumindest kurzfristig. Und sie haben das Angebot von 7,5 Mille ausgeschlagen. mssen ja echt überzeugt sein, die Anwälte von Patriot. ;O)
11.11.04 13:09
#338
timm
das sollte Bewegung bedeuten
schön das es hier wieder Bewegubg gibr, ich meine jetzt allerdings die News-Bewegung und hoffe auch dann auf Kursbewegung, naja mal schauen, doch erst einmal scheint es ja einen posetiven geschmack zu verleihen udn versüssen könnt eman das nun mit steigenden Kursen
also mal schauen und Daumendrücken
also mal schauen und Daumendrücken
11.11.04 13:16
#339
Possibility
Hallo Leute
mal ein Tipp für schnelle New`s und so !
http://www.otcbb.com/help/CMS_Includes/homepage.stm
Gruß
Bernd
mal ein Tipp für schnelle New`s und so !
http://www.otcbb.com/help/CMS_Includes/homepage.stm
Gruß
Bernd
11.11.04 13:43
#340
Eichi
Die Zocker stehen hier in Lauerstellung
vgl. CommerceOne - Plötzlich steht die Aktie bei 0,20 €.
11.11.04 13:48
#341
Mischa
0,20 halte ich für zuviel. morgen ist ja
wieder ein termin vs moore. sollte, wie zu erwarten, die rechtmäßigkeit der patente patriot zugesprochen werden, könnten wir in den nächsten tagen wieder höhere umsätze und pluszeichen sehen. ;O)
wieder ein termin vs moore. sollte, wie zu erwarten, die rechtmäßigkeit der patente patriot zugesprochen werden, könnten wir in den nächsten tagen wieder höhere umsätze und pluszeichen sehen. ;O)
11.11.04 13:51
#342
Mischa
in frankfurt wurden bid und ask schon
erhöht. über den kurs in amiland..... die deutschen sollten mal abwarten, wie die amis reagieren auf die meldung....! kopfschüttel
erhöht. über den kurs in amiland..... die deutschen sollten mal abwarten, wie die amis reagieren auf die meldung....! kopfschüttel