2 Milliarden Dollar: Patriot Scientific klagt gegen Intel ( Seite 19)

Ich bin zwar nicht bekannt, aber da jemand wissen wollte, wer alles investiert ist, möchte ich mich mal outen!

SP

Nicht schlecht, Mr. Brasil, aber warum klagen die erst now? In `99 wäre es besser gewesen, insn`t

greets

Larry

Hey Larry,

was machst Du denn hier? Schon sieht man nach Jahren mal wieder nach - Treffer. Bist Du denn in PTSC investiert? Ich habe die noch als Leichen im Keller, wollte die schon längst entsorgen, however, die Aussichten in den anstehenden Prozessen - egal mit welchem Ausgang - auch eine schlechte Publicity ist eine gute Werbung - wird das Ding schon etwas upmoven. Bin gespannt, ob die neue Richterin die mittlerweile doch verwässerten Rechte für Patriot anerkennt.

Schicke mir mal ne mail an verizon.

See ya

ALEX

Na Larry,

wohl noch nicht den Thread gelesen - was ?
Ich bin jedenfalls auch dabei. Die Sache sieht einfach zu vielversprechend aus, da mußte ich am Freitag mal rein...

Art

@art,

ist mir zu lang, ausserdem die Vergangenheit kenne ich, die Zukunft ist interessant. Good luck mit dem Invest, denke geht Montag vor dem danach folgenden upmove noch mal ein bisschen runter - aber muss nicht sein.

Falls die nachlassen, dann kaufe ich nochmal nach und halte die erstmal bis zum ersten Prozess - sofern der nicht verschoben wird.

see ya

Larry

@ Larry

also dann - die Patente wurden vollumfänglich erst Ende 2003 gesichert - deswegen "erst" jetzt die Patentklagen.

Art

Es geht so langsam los...lest euch mal durch, was da startet und um welche Firmen und Geräte es zunächst (das ist ja erst der Anfang) geht:

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT


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 SPEEED 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©
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 States Patent and
Trademark Office as follows: Reel/Frame 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:
Satelite A10;
Satelite A35;
Satelite M30;
Satelite P10;
Satelite 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 right 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 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
(Declaratory 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 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, 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
(Inducement of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5809,336 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 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 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 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:

(1) adjudging Fish the sole inventor of the ‘336 Patent;
(2) adjudging Patriot the sole owner of the ‘336 Patent;
(3) 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;
(4) adjudging U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 valid, enforceable, and infringed by the Infringing Defendants;
(5) 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;
(6) directing the Infringing Defendants to account for all revenue derived from the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint;
(7) awarding plaintiff Patriot monetary damages from the Infringing Defendants for past infringement, including but not limited to a reasonable royalty, plus applicable pre- and post- judgment 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;
(8) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, awarding up to treble damages for willful, deliberate, and intentional infringement by the Infringing Defendants; and
(9) 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.


Dated: March 11, 2004 BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP.

INTEL DENKT UM

Schluss mit der Gigahatz

Künftig verkauft Intel seine Prozessoren wie ein Autohändler als 300er, 500er oder 700er. Verwirrung ist programmiert, denn jahrelang propagierte der Chiphersteller seinen Kunden, dass allein die Gigahertz zählen.

Wie viel Millionen haben die Intel-Manager wohl in Werbekampagnen gesteckt, die nur eine einzige Botschaft zum Inhalt hatten: Mehr Gigahertz ist schneller. Die PC-Hersteller beteiligten sich fleißig an der Gigahatz. Kunden glaubten den Heilsversprechen und kauften sich brav alle zwei Jahre einen Rechner, mit dem alles noch viel schneller gehen sollte.

Pustekuchen! So viel schneller ging das Tippen mit Word und Excel dann doch nicht. Allenfalls Hardcore-Gamer oder Bild- und Videobearbeiter merkten etwas von dem Gigahertzsprung hinterm Komma.

Nun hat Intel die Abkehr von der alten Takt-Ideologie verkündet. Statt 3,4 Gigahertz-Monstern soll die Kundschaft jetzt bitteschön 300er, 500er oder 700er Prozessor erwerben. Der Strategiewechsel soll im Juni beginnen und macht durchaus Sinn. Schließlich bewegen sich die aktuell schnellsten Chips auf einem Niveau, das große Sprünge bei der Taktfrequenz immer mehr erschwert. Ein 3-Gigahertz-Prozessor produziert so viele Verlustströme, dass man damit mittlerweile ein kleines Arbeitszimmer beheizen kann. Ohne Monsterlüfter droht der schnelle Hitzetod.

Hinzu kommt: Intels Werbeaussage "Nur die Gigahertz zählen" war eine glatte Lüge - das hat man beim Marktführer mit über 80 Prozent Anteil inzwischen eingesehen. Es kommt genauso gut auf den internen Cache-Speicher und die Bus-Geschwindigkeit an, predigen PC-Magazine schon seit Jahren. "Die Gesamtheit all dieser Merkmale ist wichtiger als nur die Gigahertz allein", betonte der plötzlich geläuterte Intel-Sprecher Bill Calder.

Doch es geht Intel nicht allein um die Wahrheit darüber, was einen flotten Prozessor ausmacht. Auch Absatzprobleme beim seit rund einem Jahr verfügbaren Pentium M dürften eine Rolle gespielt haben. Der Notebookprozessor ist zwischen 1,4 und 1,7 Gigahertz getaktet - viele Kunden verschmähten ihn deshalb und griffen lieber zu einen Mobilgerät mit einem höher getakteten Pentium-4.

In der neuen Intel-Nomenklatur wird der Pentium M zur Oberklasse aufgewertet und firmiert als 700er. Die 500er-Riege besteht aus Pentium-4-Prozessoren und umfasst sowohl Desktop- als auch Notebook-Ausgaben. Die Einsteigerklasse Celeron firmiert künftig als 300er. Die erste Ziffer zeigt die Prozessorklasse an, zweite und dritte Ziffer stehen für die übrigen Merkmale wie Taktfrequenz, Bus-Geschwindigkeit und Cache-Größe.

Die Verwirrung bei den Kunden scheint programmiert, wenn der Verkäufer den ratlosen Kunden fragt: "Solls ein 521er, 533er oder 712er sein?" Zumal Intel betont, dass Prozessoren mit höheren Endnummern aus einer unteren Klasse durchaus schneller sein können als solche aus einer höheren Klasse mit niedrigen Endziffern.

"Intels Vorhaben ist verständlich, aber seine Umsetzung misslungen", konstatierten denn auch die Analysten von Gartner. Die Nummern spiegelten nicht explizit die Taktfrequenz wieder. Die Kunden müssten Tabellen bemühen, um sie zu interpretieren. "Wir prophezeien, das Intel gezwungen sein wird, seine Nummerierung auf relative Performance umzustellen", glauben die Analysten.

Solch ein System benutzt der Erzfeind AMD schon seit mehr als zwei Jahren. Statt der Taktfrequenz heißen die Athlon-Prozessoren etwa 3400+, wobei die Zahl angibt, um wie viel schneller der Chip im Vergleich zu früheren Modellen werkelt. Die Taktfrequenz eines Athlon 3400+ liegt bei vergleichsweise lahmen 2,2 Gigahertz. Gleichwohl kann das AMD-Spitzenmodell mit den Pentiums von Intel mithalten.

Bei AMD schüttelt man über Intels neue Nomenklatur nur den Kopf. Das Nummernsystem sei willkürlich, sagte Marketing-Manager Hal Speed. Die Angaben bei AMD-Prozessoren basierten stattdessen auf unabhängigen Benchmarks über die Performance, betonte der Manager.

Holger Dambeck