Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006

Re: Can someone....tomorrow and next week....
in response to Can someone by network
posted on Jun 28, 12 08:25PM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]

As for tomorrow, the Markman ruling from Judge Ware requires only that the parties supply a schedule for further briefing of the remaining issue, not that such briefs actually be submitted by tomorrow. While it is possible that the parties might choose to submit, I would consider such highly unlikely, and would expect only the schedule required. Also, the Markman ruling requires that the parties advise the Court by tomorrow whether they will agree to Magistrate Judge Grewal to preside over the remainder of the case.

Next week, on July 3, there will be a hearing on the issue of whether TPL's amended ICs are adequate under the Patent Local Rules, which, as I recall, will be handled by the Special Master. The last time this issue was before the Court, I had expected the ruling would take awhile, but the Special Master ruled later on in the day of the hearing itself. Of course, Special Master has a work schedule just like everyone else, and things may have changed since last time so that he cannot now act as quickly --- however, especially due to his familiarity with the issue, there is a good chance the ruling will be issued on July 3, or very shortly thereafter.

Hope this helps. Best wishes to all.

We have to sell discount, because of the time factor except for a few big targets at the end of the 6 crawl-back years.

Ts and os

GLTAL


Ps.: Kann ich mir zwar nicht vorstellen (das wären bis zu 10 Dollar pro Aktie)- das ist nur möglich bei 100% Gewinn vor Gericht und so wie es aussieht, ...???- aber in den USA ist ja alles möglich

1 Dollar pro Aktie....aber man kann nie wissen...nur vermuten und vor allem hoffen !

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1695675#message

Ronran zum weiteren Verlauf - nächstes Datum 3. Juli 2012.

With this in mind, I asked Jim whether the invalidation of one claim of a patent would invalidate the patent as a whole, or whether the remaining claims (assuming they didn’t use or incorporate the same language) would stand. Although Jim was careful to state that there can always be exceptions, the answer, in general, is that the entire patent would not be invalidated merely because one claim is found to be invalid. He also explained to some extent the role of “dependent” and “independent”claims in this context, but I’m not sure that’s really applicable in the present scenario.

I certainly hope we prevail on the “ring oscillator” issue because it will affect some of the other MMP patents as well, and in my very “non-tech” opinion, it seems to me that TPL has the better position. However, it appears to me that the above could be important in terms of some of the other claims of the “336. I seem to recall that Ease, and perhaps several others, have spoken to some extent about this subject over the last few weeks, and I apologize if I’m merely stating the obvious or if I’m covering old ground. I get beyond my understanding very quickly as to tech stuff, so I’ll leave it to those who have such knowledge to comment further if they so choose.

My second inquiry to Jim spoke to the issue of whether prior art previously considered and distinguished in PTO re-exam proceedings could nonetheless be “revived” (my term) and used during litigation to the detriment of the patentee. You may recall my post a couple of weeks ago on this subject, which came from a post on the EDIG board — the website article cited therein seemed to indicate that the answer to this inquiry would be “no”. However, if that is correct, then why is Judge Ware talking about “Talbot” when the PTO examiner has already determined that “Talbot” is not prior art?

On this question, Jim indicated that he has never seen such a thing occur, but that, since the prior PTO exams were “ex parte” in nature (i.e.., they did not include the T3), it is possible that the Court may be able to validly reconsider the patents cited as alleged prior art during those proceedings. However, it was also his opinion that, even in that event, the party now relying on such prior art in litigation would need to prove its application by the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard — this is considerably beyond the “more likely than not” standard of regularly applied in most civil cases, but less than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal cases. It is considered a very difficult standard to meet, which, in this instance, is good for TPL, and therefore also good for us.

I hope I haven’t bored everyone to tears with this lengthy post, but I felt that if these subjects were important enough for me to inquire about by asking a “real life” patent attorney, then you deserved to know the results and to have them explained in sufficient detail. Best wishes to all.

Ist ja alles schön und gut, wir brauchen aber harte Fakten, ein klares Urteil zu gunsten von PTSC und entsprechende Lizenzeinnahmen und -nachzahlungen.

Bis dahin bleibt es leider bei Wunschvorstellungen, wie lange geht dieser Mist nun schon so, warum ist dieser Richter unfähig eine eindeutige Entscheidung zu treffen, wofür wird der bezahlt? Es wird langsam mal Zeit für Klarheit.

http://imageevent.com/banos/t37212

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1696508#message

ich habe es erstmal nur überflogen, überlasse die Beurteilung "anderen".
Meine Meinung, Vermutung ist aber äußerst negativ.
Was meinst Du/Ihr ???

Die sollten doch jetzt alle an einem Strang ziehen und was machen die :
Vom Bob gibt es kein lebenszeichen
TPL (und Acer) wollen ein neuer Richter - der alte geht in Rente
TPL konnte die Patente nicht richtig überzeugend "RÜBER BRINGEN" - (nach meiner Meinung Punkte sieg für T3)
TPL haben wahrscheinlich vergessen das Patent 148 zu verlängern - Chuck´s Seite?
http://www.colorforth.com/blog.htm

zur Zeit läuft bei PTSC wohl alles schief und es ist die letzte Chance!!!

das du trotzdem noch ne chance von 1 : 10000 hast....dass deine aktien noch auf nen dollar steigen....
also...ist zwar ne ganz, ganz kleine chance...aber sie ist da....
also...kopf hoch !
;-)

Patent term: Laufdauer eines Patentes. In den USA in der Regel 20 Jahre ab dem Anmeldungsdatum einer nonprovisional application. (Wenn das Patent auf einer Anmeldung basiert, die vor dem 8. Juni 1995 eingereicht worden ist, ist die Laufdauer in der Regel entweder 20 Jahre ab dem Anmeldungsdatum oder 17 Jahre ab dem Erteilungsdatum, abhängig davon, was in der längeren Laufdauern resultiert.)

 

Patent number: 6598148

Filing date: Jul 29, 1998

Issue date: Jul 22, 2003

Application number: 09/124,623

http://www.google.com/patents/US6598148

All patents (other than design patents) that were in force on June 8, 1995, or that issued on an application that was filed before June 8, 1995, have a term that is the greater of the "twenty-year term" or seventeen years from the patent grant. See 35 U.S.C. 154(c). A patent granted on an international application filed before June 8, 1995, and which entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 before, on or after June 8, 1995, will have a term that is the greater of seventeen years from the date of grant or twenty years from the international filing date or any earlier filing date relied upon under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c). The terms of these patents are subject to reduction by any applicable terminal disclaimers (discussed below).

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2700_2701.htm

Name Kurs Bid Stk. Bid  Ask  Ask Stk.
Nasdaq OTC Bulletin Board  0,086   n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  
Frankfurt  0,057   72.000  0,055  0,082  51.250  
Stuttgart  0,063   50.000  0,063  0,076  50.000  
Tradegate  0,055   20.000  0,055  0,065  22.500  
München  0,081   20.000  0,058  0,082  5.000  
Berlin  0,057   20.000  0,055  0,065  50.000  

Stuttgart ist im bid immer etwas höher und im ask immer etwas tiefer als der Rest und immer 50000 Stück.So ein Zufall aber auch.

Name Kurs Bid Stk. Bid  Ask  Ask Stk.
Stuttgart  0,063   50.000  0,063  0,075  50.000  
Frankfurt  0,06   29.000  0,06  0,081  81.250  
München  0,081   5.000  0,06  0,081  5.000  
Nasdaq OTC Bulletin Board  0,085   n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  
Tradegate  0,065   20.000  0,06  0,081  20.000  
Berlin  0,06   20.000  0,06  0,081  20.000

eigentlich sind doch diese Infos gar nicht wichtig...
man könnte diese Bid/Ask Schei***e gar nicht beachten, bzw. dies würde erst gar nicht passieren, wenn es um PTSC entsprechend positiv stehen würde....
Also....Top Firmenpolitik, vernüftige Statements seitens des Unternehmens zur "Lage der Nation", Kauf durch BOD selbst, um zu zeigen....wir stehen hinter PTSC, Gerichtsentscheidung,  usw. usw. usw.
Aber solange nichts im Sinne der Shareholder passiert, solange ist das Ding ein "faules Ei"

Ich wollte nur aufzeigen,dass der Kurs nichts mit Aktionären zu tun hat.

Name Kurs Bid Stk. Bid  Ask  Ask Stk.
Nasdaq OTC Bulletin Board  0,081   n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  
Stuttgart  0,063   50.000  0,063  0,072  50.000  
München  0,081   5.000  0,06  0,09  5.000  
Tradegate  0,065   20.000  0,06  0,09  20.000  
Frankfurt  0,058   84.000  0,06  0,09  62.583  
Berlin  0,058   20.000  0,06  0,09  20.000

described as “generic” white papers and declarations which deal more with the generalities
of the technical field involved and the underlying laws of physics and chip production, they
do, when read carefully, meet the burden of local Patent Rule 3-1(c). This is true as to all
three patents at issue, the ‘336, ‘749 and ‘890.
The greatest part of Barco’s moving papers is directed at whether or not the various
limitations involved in the three patents in suit are in fact manifested in the Barco products.
This, however, is a question for a later day, a subject for discovery and, eventually, proof.
At the present stage, the question is whether or not TPL has adequately specified where
each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality. This
TPL has done. Local Patent Rule 3-1(c); Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc., 2002
WL 32126128 (N.D. Cal. August 13, 2002); Shared Memory Graphics, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99166 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2nd 2011)
TPL asserts, correctly, that its infringement contention advise Barco as to where
each limitation found. By way of illustrative example, as to Claim 1 of the 336 Patent, after
citation to the book “Design of High Performance Microprocessor Circuits,” Chapter 6, by
Anatha Chandra and to a declaration by its expert, Dr. Oklobdziga, TPL goes on to state
that “This limitation is found within the Virtex-5 chip itself.” That chip is incorporated within
the accused “JPEG DCPD-2000 Encoder/Decoder.” Whether TPL can back up that
assertion as the case moves forward is a question for another day.
TPL provides similar specification of the location of where each limitation of each
asserted claim is found within the accused products.
The parties have ten days from the date of this Order to file any objection

denke auch das es heute Bewegung gibt.

...leider ne Bewegung wie ne Schnecke.....
;-)

dass die firma oder die verantwortlichen nicht mal nur ein biosschen imagepflege zum aktienkurs betreiben.
und da noch nicht mal ein statement für die aktionäre kommt, denke ich ist der kurs dort, wo er hingehört.
schade.
die 0,05 werden wir bestimmt auch noch wieder sehen.

ja, es gibt viele Gründe um zu klagen, aber es ist wie es ist und die Chancen sind ja noch immer vorhanden. Deswegen haben wir diese Shares doch gekauft.

10.7   Licensing Program Services Agreement effective July 11, 2012 among
      Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC, Alliacense Limited, LLC, Technology
      Properties Limited, LLC, and the Company.*

10.8   Agreement effective July 11, 2012 between Technology Properties Limited,
      LLC and the Company.*

10.9   Agreement effective July 17, 2012 among Phoenix Digital Solutions, LLC,
      Alliacense Limited, LLC, Technology Properties Limited, LLC, and the
      Company.*

* The Company has requested confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The confidential portions of this exhibit have been omitted and are marked accordingly. The confidential portions have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/...e=8-K&RcvdDate=7/17/2012&pdf=

AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into by and between PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION (“PTSC”), and TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC (“TPL”) hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the “Parties”.

WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the Parties to facilitate the selection of a new MMP Program Vendor by PTSC to replace TPL; and,

WHEREAS, the following collateral undertakings between the parties may expedite that process.

http://agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1700395#message

Einschätzungen dazu ?