Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006

hallo....
ich hatte mir nochmal den Brief vom 20.11. angesehen und bin über folgenden Satz gestolpert :
1)What are we doing about Patriot's share price?


As a shareholder myself, I understand the frustration that our depressed share price has created...... usw.

a)   Continue the buy-back of PTSC shares at attractive levels - Patriot has been an active buyer of its shares, but only within the volume and trading guidelines set by the SEC.

Patriot has been an active buyer .... hat einen aktiven Käufer...heisst das neben den eigenen Rückkäufen ist ein "Institutioneller" im Boot ???
Steht irgendwo wer das ist ?
Gibt es da Aussagen zu ?

Danke für Antworten.

PTSC ist der Buyer .....
English falsch gelesen ...

Doing this not only brings exposure to the company, but it will inevitably bring in new investors and add liquidity to the stock – a very good thing.

An illiquid is stock makes it difficult for investors to enter/exit positions quickly and invariably results in larger bid/ask spreads. Large bid/ask spreads translates into money out of your pocket because you aren’t receiving optimal pricing.

Many microcap stocks suffer from a lack of liquidity. However, with investor relations and publicity programs in-place, Patriot Scientific is actively working to ensure a liquid environment for its stock.

4) Patriot Scientific has a relatively small market capitalization

If you multiply the price of the stock by the total number of shares outstanding, you get the company’s market capitalization. Patriot Scientific currently has a market capitalization under $250 million which falls into category of microcap stocks.

Microcap stocks can be volatile. However, the potential upside is far greater than that of a larger company. That’s because it is statistically easier for a small company to double or triple in size compared to a stock with a large market capitalization.

Therefore, the returns on microcap investments such as Patriot Scientific can be staggering.

5) Patriot Scientific is still “under the radar” of Wall Street

A sound strategy for making money in the markets is to buy a rock-solid company while it is still ‘under the radar” of Wall Street. By getting in before anyone else knows about the stock, you position yourself to ride any price appreciation as other investors discover the company’s potential.

Because Patriot Scientific trades on the OTCBB, the stock is not yet known to the vast majority of Wall Street’s big money players. As Patriot Scientific develops its business and increases marketing efforts, it could attract a larger following from Wall Street. And that could send the share price soaring.

COPYRIGHT © 2008 DAVIS JONES RESEARCH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

patriotscientific.com/...sk=view&id=45&Itemid=60&qm_page=60615

patriotscientific.com/...sk=view&id=45&Itemid=60&qm_page=53606

www.duttonassociates.com/research/ptsc/...ptsc_note_112408.pdf

secfilings.nasdaq.com/...rmType=4&RcvdDate=11%2F25%2F2008&pdf=

scheint zu passieren. Das Volumen nimmt wieder deutlich zu.

secfilings.nasdaq.com/...rmType=4&RcvdDate=11%2F26%2F2008&pdf=

der nächste Insider kauft und das Volumen war über 1Mio Shares.

5. The Parties seek the current extension in order to have a final ruling regarding the remaining patents asserted in the three related cases before this Court.
6. Counsel for all parties have stipulated to the current extension. The parties respectfully request that Defendants be granted an extension up to and including January 16, 2009, to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants Acer Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway Inc. respectfully move to have the Court grant this Fifth Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint and that Defendants have up to and including January 16, 2009 to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint, and that it have all other and further relief to which it is justly entitled.
Dated: November 26, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Benjamin Setnick
John H. McDowell, Jr.
Texas State Bar No. 13570825
Benjamin Setnick
Texas State Bar No. 24058820
K&L Gates LLP
1717 Main Street
Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75201
Timothy P. Walker
California Bar No. 105001
Harold H. Davis, Jr.
California Bar No. 235552
K&L GATES LLP
55 Second St., Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94105
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, ACER
INC., AND GATEWAY, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on November 26, 2008. Any other counsel of record will be served via facsimile transmission and first class mail.

/s/ Benjamin Setnick
Benjamin Setnick

produce any and all of its yet-to-be-identified percipient witnesses for deposition in this district, regardless of the individualized hardships or injustices that may arise when actual witnesses are identified. This request is made in the absence of any notice of deposition. None of the authorities cited by the TPL Entities support such an inflexible blanket discovery order.2 To the contrary, the authorities emphasize that the determination of the proper location for a deposition is subject to the court’s broad discretion and is dependent on the unique facts and circumstances surrounding each particular witness. Because the TPL Entities’ motion to compel asks the court to impose an overly broad, inflexible rule that will result in one-sided inconvenience and expense for HTC and invite discovery abuse by the TPL Entities, the Motion should be denied.

II. BACKGROUND

A. HTC Files Suit, and the Court Rules that this District is the Proper Venue. In December 2005, the TPL Entities began making demands to HTC for the payment of royalties on the patents-in-suit, and have repeatedly alleged that HTC products infringe those patents, including claim charts that purport to describe how certain HTC products allegedly infringe the patents. Docket No. 35 at 4:11-21. After more than two years of the TPL Entities’ escalating aggression and ensuing fruitless negotiations, HTC was left with no choice but to file the present lawsuit for declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe the TPL patents. Several months after HTC filed this declaratory judgment suit, the TPL Entities filed suit
1 The “TPL Entities” collectively refers to Technology Properties Ltd., Patriot Scientific Corp., and Alliacense Ltd.
2 Although the TPL Entities seek to compel HTC to produce all of its percipient witnesses in this district for both deposition and trial, the authorities cited in the Motion are limited to the production of witnesses for depositions only.
3 The Motion should also be denied due to the TPL Entities’ failure to meet and confer, as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Civil L.R. 37-1. See Declaration of Mark F. Lambert in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel the Depositions and Trial Testimony of Plaintiff HTC’s Witnesses in this District, against HTC in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement and seeking damages and a permanent injunction. The lawsuits in both districts concern the same parties and patentsin- suit and raise identical issues for adjudication. On April 25, 2008, the TPL Entities filed a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay the present action in favor of the later-filed Texas actions. Docket No. 16. HTC filed its opposition papers on July 11, 2008, and the reply papers were filed on July 18, 2008. Docket Nos. 35-39, 42-43. The parties’ submissions addressed, inter alia, whether this district or the Eastern District of Texas was the more convenient forum for the TPL Entities’ claims. HTC argued that this district was more convenient than Texas because: (1) none of the parties had offices, employees, or known witnesses in Texas, (2) all three of the TPL Entities had offices in California, (3) plaintiffs in two related cases had principal places of business in California, (4) HTC employees, located in Taiwan and Washington, can more easily travel to California than Texas, and (5) all of the inventors of the patents-in-suit, except one, reside in California. Docket No. 35 at 9:20-10:9. Applying a transfer analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and controlling Federal Circuit law, the Court ruled that this district is the more convenient forum and denied the TPL Entities’ motion on October 21, 2008. Docket No. 49.
B. The Parties Address the Issue of Deposition Location in the CMC Statement. On July 18, 2008, the parties filed the Joint Case Management Statement. Docket No. 41. In that Statement, the parties raised the issue that is the subject of the present motion, namely the propriety of a blanket rule requiring all HTC witnesses to be produced for depositions and trial in this District. HTC stated that it “will consider this District as a deposition location for overseas witnesses on a case by case basis,” recognizing that such determinations are properly addressed on a case by case basis. Id. at 6:5-6. On November 5, 2008, the parties in the related action Acer, Inc v. Technology Properties Limited, Case No. 5:08-CV-00877 JF (HRL) (the “Acer Action”) filed an updated Joint Case Management Statement. Docket No. 48 (Acer Action). That Statement also included a discussion of the parties’ positions on PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL position that it would consider such production on a case by case basis, Acer’s position was that “foreign witnesses should be deposed where they reside or work…Plaintiffs contend that depositions of Acer, Inc. and its employees occur in Taiwan.” Id. at 5:27-6:2. On November 7, 2008, the parties to the present action, the Acer Action, and the related action ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. v. Technology Properties Limited, Case No. 5:08-CV-00884 JF, participated in a status conference before this Court. During that status conference, the TPL Entities and Acer discussed whether the Acer plaintiffs were obliged to produce its foreign witnesses in this district. The production of HTC witnesses was not mentioned. See Docket No. 52. On November 17, 2008, the TPL Entities filed a motion to compel the deposition and trial testimony of the plaintiffs in the Acer Action. Also on that date, the TPL Entities notified HTC for the first time of the TPL Entities’ intention to file a similar motion in the instant action, even though they had never before raised the intent to bring such a motion in the HTC action. See Declaration of Mark F. Lambert in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel the Depositions and Trial Testimony of Plaintiff HTC’s Witnesses in this District (the “Lambert Decl.”), The TPL Entities never provided HTC with an opportunity to participate in the meet and confer sessions regarding the production of foreign witnesses that presumably took place between the TPL Entities and the Acer plaintiffs, as required by the Local Rules. In fact, the issue as it pertained to HTC had not been raised by the TPL Entities since the parties’ meetings leading up to the Joint Case Management Statement. Three days thereafter, the TPL Entities filed the Motion in the present case. The TPL Entities did not make any attempts to resolve or reach compromise on the substance of the issues raised in their motion between November 17 and the filing of the Motion on November 20. See Lambert Decl., 3.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Determining the Proper Location for a Deposition is a Fact-Intensive Inquiry to Be Made on a Witness-by-Witness Basis.
1. The proper location for a deposition depends on numerous factors specific to each witness. As recognized by this Court, the determination of the proper place for a deposition is within the “wide discretion” of the district court. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., No. C07-03952, 2008 WL 1766758, at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 15, 2008) (Lloyd, J.). This inquiry is fact-intensive, and in rendering its decision, a court should consider a host of factors relating to the convenience and hardships to the parties, as well as the economic implications of any proffered location. Id. Examples of such factors include the following witness-specific issues:
1) the location of counsel for both parties
2) the number of corporate representatives a party seeks to depose
3) whether the deponent often travels for business purpose
4) the likelihood of significant discovery disputes arising which would require resolution by the forum court
5) the equities with respect to the nature of the claims and the parties’ relationship Id. Despite this Court’s clear announcement of the need for a fact-intensive analysis, the TPL Entities would have this Court impose a blanket rule that disregards all of the above factors, and forestalls any individualized analysis. The Motion is not directed to any particular HTC witness(es).4 Instead, the TPL Entities ask for a general, all-encompassing rule – in short, a blunt instrument -- that compels HTC to produce all percipient witnesses for deposition and trial in this district, no matter what. See TPL Mot. at 4. HTC does not dispute that a proper application of the relevant factors could result in the conclusion that some HTC employees should be deposed in this District. However, a HTC
executive who regularly travels to Northern California is situated differently from a HTC engineer who has never left Taiwan. As a result, an analysis of the proper deposition location for such employees may lead to different conclusions. The TPL Entities concede that HTC could 4 Movants’ repeated accusations in the Motion and Notice of Motion that HTC “now refuses to produce its percipient witnesses here in this judicial district for deposition and trial testimony” are misleading, at best. See TPL Mot. at 4:19-20. To date, the TPL Entities have not served a deposition notice or otherwise requested that HTC produce any specific witnesses for deposition. avoid certain depositions in this district by proving undue hardship or compelling circumstances, but then summarily asserts that HTC cannot make such a showing. See TPL Mot. at 7-8. TPL’s contentions are made in a vacuum, divorced from factual details specific to any particular witness. It is quite possible that for certain witnesses, a full analysis of the factors, including but not limited to the time and costs involved in compelling an HTC witness residing in Taiwan to travel 7,000 miles via a 12-hour flight to Northern California, could militate against a deposition in this District. See Barilli v. Bianchi, 6 F.R.D. 350, 352 (N.D. Cal. 1946) (ruling that proper location for deposition of plaintiff is in district of plaintiff’s place of business because alternative location would cause “a real hardship”). HTC is entitled to prove that certain witnesses should be allowed to offer testimony from outside this District, and should not be subjected to prejudgment on such matters ex ante. The blanket rule sought by the TPL Entities leaves no room for such an analysis, and would unfairly and arbitrarily force HTC to produce witnesses only in this District even if a proper analysis would justify a different location (or deposition via telephone or other remote means pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4)). Such a result is unfair, unwarranted, and runs contrary to applicable law. The TPL Entities have not cited any authorities that support an allinclusive, blanket rule. None of the authorities cited in the TPL Entities’ motion supports the application of a blanket rule for all depositions in a case from the outset. In each of the cases cited by TPL, the court ruled on the proper location for deposition of particular witnesses that had been previously identified and noticed for deposition. See Lexington Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 1999 WL 33292943, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 1999) (ordering party to produce “the 30(b)(6) witnesses previously designated by Plaintiffs, and those designated pursuant to the order” on specific topics); Detweiler Bros., Inc. v. John Graham & Co., 412 F. Supp. 416, 422 (E.D. Wash. 1976) (deponent was a specific, named employee of plaintiff); Rolex Employees Retirement Trust v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 90-726-FR, 1990 WL 200092, at *1 (D. Or. Dec. 3 1990) (deponent was the named class representative); Seuthe v. Renwal Prods., Inc., 38 F.R.D. 323, 324 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) (deponent was the individual plaintiff); Newman v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 962 F.2d 589, 590 (7th Cir. 1992) (same); Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales S.A. v. Clark, 8 F.R.D. 565, 565-66 (D.D.C. 1948)
(deponents were three named officers and agents of plaintiff corporation). The court’s ruling in each of the cited cases was based on an in-depth analysis of the record and the facts and circumstances specific to the proposed witnesses at issue in that case. See, e.g., Rolex, 1990 WL 200092, at *1 (deponent failed to submit proof on the record to support claim of undue hardship); Seuthe, 38 F.R.D. at 324-35 (recognizing that court must consider special circumstances and do “a careful weighing of the relevant facts”); Newman, 962 F.2d at 591 (“We can imagine a case in which an order that the plaintiff appear for his deposition in the district in which he had filed the suit would be unreasonable”); Societe Internationale, F.R.D. at 566 (noting that decision was based on the record before the court). As stated in the Seuthe case, supra , “there is no hard and fast rule, and the same judge may on one set of facts require plaintiff to travel 3,000 miles from his residence to the forum for his deposition and yet on other facts fashion alternative relief.” 38 F.R.D. at 324 (emphasis added). This proper analysis is entirely consistent with HTC’s recognition all along that the location of depositions should be considered on a case by case basis.
3. HTC has never claimed that this District is the most convenient location for all depositions of HTC witnesses. In addition, the TPL Entities’ argument is misdirected because it relies solely on statements from HTC’s opposition to the TPL Entities’ motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay the present action in favor of belated actions they filed in Texas. That motion, however, addressed the separate question of whether this District or the Eastern District of Texas should exercise jurisdiction over the present action or transfer, not whether litigation of the dispute in this District would automatically require any and every HTC witness TPL chooses to depose to travel to this District for his or her deposition. See Docket Nos. 15-16. Further, HTC’s statements in its opposition papers were directed to the convenience of this District in comparison to the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §1404, and HTC’s arguments were based on other factors such as the California location of the owners and inventors of the patents-in suit and of the TPL Entities’ witnesses. Docket No. 35 at 8-10. HTC has never claimed that this District is the most convenient district for the depositions of every single one of its employees.
4. A blanket rule would invite discovery abuse. The proposed blanket rule would also invite abuse of the discovery process by the TPL Entities. With a carte blanche to drag as many HTC employees as desired into Northern California, the TPL Entities would have little incentive to exercise restraint in noticing the
depositions of foreign witnesses and imposing significant inconvenience and costs on HTC.
B. The Proposed Blanket Rule Ignores the Presumption Favoring Taiwan and Washington as Proper Deposition Locations. If a blanket rule covering all HTC witnesses is to be imposed, it should assign Taiwan and Washington as the location for the depositions5 of HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. As
this Court has recognized, the general rule is that the deposition of a corporate party should be taken at the corporation’s principal place of business. Louis Vuitton, 2008 WL 1766758, at *1; see also In re Air Crash at Taipei, Taiwan, No. MDL 1394-GAF, 2002 WL 32155478, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2002) (applying this “general rule” to order that foreign corporate representative be deposed in Singapore, where witness reside and corporation had its principal place of business). Therefore, the presumption is that any HTC witnesses to be identified by the TPL Entities should be deposed in Taiwan or Washington, where HTC has its corporate offices. The TPL Entities argue that HTC must produce all witnesses in this district because HTC “chose” to file the present action in this district. This argument ignores the realities of the present
litigation. While HTC is the nominal plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action, the TPL Entities’ demands for money, allegations of infringement against HTC products, and other actions, effectively placed HTC into a defensive posture,6 thereby forcing HTC to file the instant HTC Corporation is headquartered in Taiwain, and HTC America, Inc. is headquartered in Washington. 6 Citing Lexington, the TPL Entities also argue that an order forcing HTC to produce all witnesses in this district is warranted because HTC conducts significant business in the Northern District of California. However, the Lexington plaintiffs specifically directed their business to a group of governmental entities within California. 1999 WL 33292943, at *9. In contrast, the TPL Entities action for declaratory relief. The TPL Entities do not dispute jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act -- indeed they filed duplicative suits against HTC in Texas based on the same patents-in-suit, and they have counterclaimed here. See Docket No. 60. HTC seeks no damages and must defend itself against the counterclaims of infringement filed by the TPL Entities. See Docket Nos. 34 and 60. Thus, for all intents and purposes, HTC is the defendant against the TPL Entities’ claims in a venue that is home to TPL, and should be treated as such for the purposes of determining the proper location for the production of its witnesses.
C. The TPL Entities Should Share Expenses Resulting from Any Blanket Rule. If the Court is inclined to adopt a blanket rule as advanced by the TPL Entities, fairness dictates that the TPL Entities should be ordered to split the costs and fees associated with the HTC witnesses’ deposition. See Lexington, 1999 WL 33292943, at (requiring both parties to divide equally the costs of the witnesses’ transportation, meals, and lodging).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the TPL Entities’ motion to compel all percipient HTC witnesses to testify in this district should be denied.
Dated: December 1, 2008
WHITE & CASE LLP
By: /s/ Kyle D. Chen
Kyle D. Chen
Attorneys for Plaintiffs HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.
have provided no evidence that HTC focuses specifically on California as the situs of its business activities. Under the reasoning advanced by the TPL Entities, HTC would be allowed to produce its witnesses in Taiwan and Washington in the currently pending actions in the Eastern District of Texas, where HTC is the defendant, but must produce those same witnesses in California for the purposes of the present litigation, although both suits concern the same parties and identical issues.

FEDERAL CASES Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, 174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999) California Security Cooperative v. Multimedia Cablevision, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 316 (E.D. Tex. Colo. River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 1976)Eskofot A/S v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 872 F. Supp. 81 (S.D.N.Y 1992Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mosaid Techs., Inc., 518 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2008Nat’l Instruments Corp. v. Softwire Tech., LLC, No. 2:03-CV-047, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26952 (E.D. Tex. May 9, 2003) Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1993) Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Finance Corp., 121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1997) Texas Instruments v. Micron Semiconductor, 815 F. Supp. 994 (E.D. Tex. 1993In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 2008 WL. 4531718 (5th Cir. Oct. 10, 2008)10, 11 West Gulf Maritime Association v. ILA Deep Sea Local, 751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985) STATE CASES Huntsman Corp. v. International Risk Insurance Co., No. 1:08-CV-029, 2008 WL. 1836384 (E.D.Tex. Apr. 22, Case 2:08-cv-00172-DF Document 20 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 3 of 18

DOCKETED CASES

HTC Corp. v. Technology Properties Ltd., No. C08 00882 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 8, 2008 FEDERAL STATUTES 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 a) Case 2:08-cv-00172-DF Document 20 Filed 12/01/2008

I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) move to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer this patent infringement suit in deference to a valid, declaratory judgment action filed by HTC in the Northern District of California more than three months before Plaintiffs initiated the present action. See Declaration of Mark F. Lambert in Support of Defendants HTC Corporation’s and HTC America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer (the “Lambert Decl.”), Ex. 1 (Complaint in HTC Corp. v. Technology Properties Ltd., No. C08 00882 (N.D. Cal. filed
Feb. 8, 2008) (the “California Action)). The California Action involves the same parties, the same patent-in-suit and will present identical questions of fact and law as would the present action. The decision of whether this dispute should be heard in California or Texas has already been resolved. The judge in the California Action (Hon. Jeremy Fogel) has decided to retain jurisdiction over HTC’s declaratory judgment action, and has denied Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the California Action to this Court. Lambert Decl., Ex. 3 (Order Denying Motions to Dismiss, to Transfer Venue, and to Stay (the “October 21 Order”)) at 2. Judge Fogel found that venue was more appropriate in the Northern District of California than in Texas because, among other reasons, HTC’s action was the first-filed case and Northern California is the more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses. Id. at 6. Judge Fogel further indicated his expectation that the present Texas action would be transferred to the Northern District of California by noting in his order that “[u]pon a decision by this Court to maintain jurisdiction over this action, the Eastern District of Texas can be expected to apply a first-to-file analysis that will
result in a transfer of the second-filed Texas actions to this Court.” Id. at 7. Plaintiffs have since filed their answers in the California Action and asserted patent infringement counterclaims against HTC, meaning that all of the issues potentially raised in the present action are now joined in the ongoing California Action. See Lambert Decl., Ex. 4 (Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim in the California Action). Fifth Circuit law is clear that (a) the court where the first-filed action is pending is the court that should decide whether or not a dispute will be resolved in the first-filed forum, and (b) the first-filed judge’s decision must be adhered to by the second-filed court. Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, 174 F.3d 599, 602, 604, 606 (5th Cir. 1999). Judge Fogel’s decision denying Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer in the California Action requires that Plaintiffs abandon their attempts to seek duplicative litigation in this Court, and that these actions be either dismissed or transferred to the Northern District of California for consolidation with pending litigation there. In addition to being the venue of the first-filed action, the Northern District of California is clearly the more convenient forum because both Plaintiffs and at least one of the two inventors of the patents-in-suit are located in California. See Declaration of Hogo Ho in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer (the “Ho Decl.”) 4, 6; Lambert Decl., Ex. 7. Likewise, HTC’s witnesses can more easily travel to the Northern District of California than the Eastern District of Texas. See Ho Decl. 4-5. And finally, HTC’s first-filed declaratory judgment action encompasses all of the parties and patents in the present action, as well as additional patents and parties involved in Plaintiffs’ other belatedly filed actions in this Court. See Lambert Decl., Ex. 2 (Amended Complaint in the California Action) at 1.

II. BACKGROUND

A. HTC’s First-Filed Declaratory Judgment Action and Plaintiff’s
Belated Infringement Actions Beginning in 2005 and continuing into 2008, plaintiffs Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”) and Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot Scientific”), through their licensing arm, Alliacense Limited (“Alliacense”), demanded that HTC and its subsidiaries enter into a royalty-bearing license for its “Moore Microprocessor Patent” Case 2:08-cv-00172-DF Document 20 Filed 12/01/2008 (“MMP”) Portfolio.1 Ho Decl. 2, 3. These demands were accompanied by allegations of infringement, along with claim charts and threatening letters. Id. The threats led to negotiations between the parties which were eventually unsuccessful. Id. 3. By February 2008, it was clear that HTC and the TPL entities had reached an impasse. Id. HTC filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2008 (the “California Action”).2 Lambert Decl., Ex. 1. The operative complaint in the California Action seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity as to the following MMP Patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 (“’336 Patent”), 5,440,749 (“’749 Patent”), and 6,598,148 (“’148 Patent”), 5,784,584 (“’584 Patent”), and 5,530,890 (“’890 Patent”). Lambert Decl., Ex. 2 ¶ 15-24. HTC’s first-filed California Action addresses all of the patents at issue before this Court (i.e., the ’336, ’749, and ’148 Patents), and names as defendants the two plaintiffs in this action, as well as Alliacence – the licensing arm of TPL which also has interests in the patents-in-suit. On April 25, 2008, more than two months after the commencement of the California Actions, TPL and its co-defendants in the California Actions filed a series of 1 The MMP Patents include the patents in suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 (“’336 Patent”), 5,440,749 (“’749 Patent”), and 6,598,148 (“’148 Patent”), as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 5,784,584 and 5,530,890, which are all at issue in the first-filed action in the Northern District of California. Lambert Decl. 10; Lambert Decl., Ex. 2 15-24. In addition to the MMP Patents, the plaintiffs also own, control and license a second family of patents called the Core Flash Patents, which as explained below – are the subject of related suits in the Northern District of California. Lambert Decl. 8; see also infra, note 2 HTC’s declaratory judgment action, N.D. Cal. Case No. 08-00882-JF has been related to N.D. Cal. Case No. 08-00877-JF filed by Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. and N.D. Cal. Case No. 08-00884-JF filed by ASUSTEK Computer, Inc., all of which were filed on February 8, 2008. Lambert Decl. 11. These actions are collectively referred to as the “California Actions.” These related actions involve a total of nine patents in the MMP and Core Flash Patent families –the same nine patents that the TPL entities have asserted in their various subsequent lawsuits against the same parties in this district. Infringement lawsuits against HTC in this district, asserting various groupings of MMP Patents.3 On the same day, plaintiffs moved to dismiss or transfer all of the first-filed
California Actions to this district. Lambert Decl., Ex. 5 at Dkt. Nos. 15-20. The Northern District of California denied the TPL entities’ motions to dismiss on October 21, 2008 and retained its jurisdiction over the lawsuits. Lambert Decl., Ex. 3 at 8. The parties to the California Actions participated in a mediation hearing on October 14, 2008, and a further case management conference on November 7, 2008. Lambert Decl., Ex. 5 at Dkt. Nos. 50-51. B. Both Plaintiffs Are Located in California Plaintiff TPL is a California corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Cupertino, California, located in the Northern District of California. Complaint 1. Plaintiff Patriot Scientific has its principal place of business in Carlsbad, California, located in the Southern District of California. Id. ¶ 2. Neither TPL nor Patriot Scientific can allege any significant presence the Eastern District of Texas. C. The Inventors Listed on the Patents-In-Suit Reside in the Northern District of California TPL and Patriot Scientific are co-owners of the ’336 Patent, entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock;” the ’749 Patent, entitled “High Performance, Low Cost Microprocessor Architecture;” and the ’148 The initial suits filed by TPL in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement include the instant case and Case No. 2:02-cv-00174-TJW (asserting the ’584); Case No. 2:08-cv-00175-TJW-CE (asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 7,295,443 and 7,162,549); and Case No. 2:08-cv-00177-CE (asserting the ’336 and ’749, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,438,638, and 6,976,623). Lambert Decl. 12. Subsequently, TPL filed an additional two suit, Case No. 2:01-cv-00226-TJW and Case No. 2:08-cv-00227-DF (both asserting the ’890 Patent) on June 4, 2008. Id. 13. 4 Like the plaintiffs, Alliacense is also located in Cupertino, California. Lambert Decl., Ex. 2 6.
Patent, entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock.” Complaint 7-9. TPL is the exclusive licensee of all three patents in suit. Id. The inventors listed on the face of the ’336 Patent are Charles H. Moore of Woodside, California and Russell H. Fish, III of Mountain View, California.5 Lambert Decl., Ex. 7. Both of these cities are located in the Northern District of California. These same inventors are listed on the face of the ’749 and ’148 Patents. Id. D. The HTC Entities Have No Presence in the Eastern District of Texas HTC is a Taiwan corporation headquartered in Taoyuan, Taiwan. Ho Decl. 5. It conducts its business in the United States, including sales and distribution of its products, through HTC America, a U.S. subsidiary of HTC which is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Id. 4. Representatives of both HTC entities can more conveniently travel to the Northern District of California than to Texas to attend proceedings and appear as witnesses: they can fly directly to the Northern District of California on non-stop commercial flights, and can reach that district in half the time required to reach the Eastern District of Texas. Id. 4, 5. Neither HTC Corporation nor HTC America has a place of business or any significant business contacts in the Eastern District of Texas, and neither has any reason to believe that any relevant witnesses are located there. Id. 6. 5 The ’336 and ’749 Patents list Mr. Fish as residing in Mountain View, California, but the ’148 Patent lists Mr. Fish as residing in Dallas, Texas. TPL has claimed through the declaration of its counsel in the first-filed declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California that Mr. Fish currently resides in Dallas. However, even if Mr. Fish does reside in Dallas, Dallas is located in the Northern District of Texas, not the Eastern District. If Mr. Fish does live in Dallas, his testimony can be taken in the Northern District of Texas pursuant to Rule 45. Further, the residence of one inventor does not outweigh the substantial factors, as discussed infra, which make the Northern District of California a more convenient and appropriate forum for this action.

III. ARGUMENT

Since HTC’s California Action was filed months in advance of this action, and involves all of the parties and all of the patents at issue in this case, the first-to-file rule militates in favor of dismissal of this action. Alternatively, the first-to-file rule requires transfer to the Northern District of California, which recently decided to retain jurisdiction over the California Action. As recognized in the Northern District of California’s October 21 Order, well-settled Fifth Circuit doctrine favoring first-filed cases, as well as the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mosaid Techs., Inc., 518 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2008), direct this result because the California action is (1) a legitimate first-filed declaratory judgment action involving the same parties and patents; and (2) the convenience factors under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) strongly favor the Northern District of California as the proper venue.6 A. The “First-to-File” Rule Favors Dismissal of This Action or Transfer to the Northern District of California, Where That Court Retains Jurisdiction Over a Substantially Identical, First- Filed Action The Fifth Circuit follows the first-to-file rule. West Gulf Maritime Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local, 751 F.2d 721, 730 (5th Cir. 1985). Under the rule, “a district court may dismiss an action where the issues presented can be resolved in an earlier-filed action pending in another district court.” Id. at 729. In deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule, the Court must resolve two questions: (1) are the two pending actions so duplicative or do they involve such substantially similar issues that one court should decide the subject matter of both actions, and if so, (2) which of the two courts should take it. Nat’l Instruments Corp. v. Softwire Tech., LLC, No. 2:03-CV-047, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26952, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 9, 6 Indeed, in light of the October 21 Order, Plaintiffs should have voluntarily dismissed this and all related actions pursuant to Rule 41(a). In fact, counsel for HTC repeatedly requested that they do so. See Lambert Decl.14-15. 2003); Texas Instruments v. Micron Semiconductor, 815 F. Supp. 994, 997 (E.D. Tex. 1993). The initial consideration of substantial overlap is satisfied when the first-filed action and the second-filed action(s) involve closely related questions, common subject matter, or substantially overlapping core issues. Texas Instruments, 815 F. Supp. at 997. The two cases need not be identical or involve identical parties for a substantial overlap to exist. Huntsman Corp. v. Int’l Risk Ins. Co., No. 1:08-CV-029, 2008 WL 1836384, at *4 (E.D.Tex. Apr. 22, 2008) (citing Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950-51 (5th Cir. 1997); West Gulf Maritime Ass’n, 751 F.2d at 730). Here, HTC’s first-filed California declaratory judgment action completely encompasses the subject matter of the present action. The California court expressly recognized that the first-filed action “will settle the legal relations of the parties.”
Lambert Decl., Ex. 3 at 7. Dismissal or transfer of the later-filed action pursuant to the first-to-file rule is especially warranted where, as here, the first-filed court has decided to retain jurisdiction over the parties’ claims. 1. The First-Filed Court’s Decision to Retain Jurisdiction Under the First-to-File Rule Renders This Case Duplicative and Unnecessary The first-to-file rule counsels dismissal of this action because the same issues will be fully adjudicated in HTC’s legitimate, first-filed declaratory judgment action. The “first-to-file” rule is rooted in “principles of comity and sound judicial administration.” Save Power Ltd., 121 F.3d at 950. Further, deference to substantially similar, first-filed actions arises from principles of abstention, which instruct federal district courts to avoid duplicative litigation. Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976); California Security Coop v. Multimedia Cablevision, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 316, 317 (E.D. Tex. 1995). Under such principles, federal courts seek to avoid rulings that may intrude upon the authority of sister courts, and piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result. West Gulf Maritime Ass’n, 751 F.2d at 729. It would be a gross violation of these principles of comity and judicial efficiency to allow the present action to proceed in tandem with the first-filed action. The two actions are duplicative and share the same subject matter. All of the patents asserted in this case are also the subject of HTC’s first-filed action. In addition, all of the parties in this action are also parties to the first-filed California declaratory judgment action. Indeed, HTC’s first-filed California Action subsumes the entirety of the subject matter of this action and the plaintiffs’ other actions against HTC in this district. Most importantly, the first-filed court has ruled that it is the appropriate forum for the adjudication of the parties’ claims. Lambert Decl., Ex. 3 at 8. Therefore, this Court should dismiss the present, later-filed action in deference to the first-filed case in California. See id. at 729; Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Ordinarily, as occurred here, the district court confronted with the later-filed action should dismiss it in favor of the case that was filed earlier”). 2. This Court Should Defer to the First-Filed Court and Transfer the Case to the First-Filed Court In lieu of dismissal, the overwhelming overlap of issues between this case and the first-filed California Action justifies transfer to the first-filed court under the essential deference principles of the first-to-file rule. When faced with such substantial overlap, “the proper course of action [is] for the [second-filed] court to transfer the case” to the first-filed court. Cadle, 174 F.3d at 606. Moreover, “[o]nce the likelihood of a substantial overlap between the two suits ha[s] been demonstrated, it [is] no longer up to [the second-filed] court to resolve the question of whether both should be allowed to proceed.” Id. at 605-06 (quoting Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1971)). 3. The Court Should Dismiss or Transfer this Action Because the Northern District of California Is the More Convenient Forum The first-to-file doctrine is consistent with the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Micron, which defines the scope of discretion afforded to trial courts in making a venue determination between a first-filed declaratory judgment action and a subsequently filed infringement action in a second forum. 518 F.3d at 903-05. The Micron court recognized that a section 1404(a) convenience analysis should guide the outcome. There, the Federal Circuit reasoned: With an eye toward the convenience factors, the Northern District of California is the more convenient forum for the dispute between Micron and MOSAID. Although MOSAID is a Canadian company, its U.S. operations are based out of the Northern District of California. Both Micron and MOSAID do business both in California and Texas, so this does not weigh in favor of either forum. Also, the record does not show that availability of witnesses or jurisdiction over desirable parties favors Texas over California. While the well-known patent forum of the Eastern District of Texas has heard cases involving some of the same patents, the record does not show any ongoing litigation requiring consolidation. Therefore, this factor also does not suggest a better forum in Texas. On balance, the jurisdiction of the first-filed declaratory judgment action
appears to be the more convenient forum for both parties. Id. at 905. In its October 21 Order, the Northern District of California (which also heard Micron) acknowledged that the California Action is “factually similar” to Micron and applied Micron to conclude that California, not Texas, is the appropriate and more convenient forum for this action. Lambert Decl., Ex. 3 at 7. In fact, the circumstances are far more compelling here than in Micron because one of the plaintiffs and at least one of the two inventors of the patents-in-suit are located in the Northern District of California. Id.; Complaint 1-2; Lambert Decl., Ex. 7. For these reasons, there can be no doubt that the Northern District of California is the most convenient and appropriate forum for resolution of the patent infringement issues between TPL, Patriot Scientific and HTC. In fact, as explained in the October 21 Order, the Northern District of California has already adjudged that the convenience to the parties and witnesses is best served by trying the parties’ claims in California, and it would be an abuse of discretion to hold otherwise under Micron. Lambert Decl., Ex. 3 at 6-7. The Micron analysis is in line with the Fifth Circuit’s application of the first-tofile rule. A district court “may transfer any civil action to any other district court where it might have been brought . . . for the convenience of the parties and witnesses” or “in the interests of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Determination of the more convenient forum depends on a number of private and public interest factors. See In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. Oct. 10, 2008). Application of the Volkswagen private interest factors leads to the same conclusion that the Northern District of California reached under Micron. (1) Transferring this case to California would promote “the relative ease of access to sources of proof” because TPL and Patriot Scientific respectively maintain their principal places of business in Cupertino, California, and Carlsbad, California. Complaint 1-2; see Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315. Neither plaintiff has offices, employees or known witnesses in the Eastern District of Texas. Ho Decl. 6. Documents and other evidence relevant to this litigation are more likely to be located in the Northern District of California, or in locations that are much closer to that district than this one. Id. at 4; see Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 316 (holding that this “meaningful factor” favors transfer to the district where documents and other physical evidence are located). (2) Transferring this case would promote “the availability of the compulsory process to secure the witnesses’ attendance” because at least one of the inventors of the patents-in-suit resides in the Northern District of California, and none reside in the Eastern District of Texas. See Lambert Decl., Ex. 7; see also Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315. To the extent that one inventor may be located in Dallas, Texas, such fact would simply make the residence of the inventors a “dead heat” issue and insufficient to sway the analysis against the first-filed court. (3) Transferring the case would reduce “the willing witnesses’ cost of attendance” because the plaintiffs are both located in California, at least one of the two inventors resides in the Northern District of California, and HTC’s witnesses can more easily and cheaply travel from Taiwan and Seattle to San Francisco, California than to Marshall, Texas. Lambert Decl., Ex. 2 2-3; Lambert Decl., Ex. 7; Ho Decl. 4; see also Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315-16 (factor favors transfer to district where potential witnesses reside); Eskofot A/S v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 872 F. Supp. 81, 95-96 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (district with international airport favored for convenience of foreign witnesses). (4) Because both plaintiffs have their principal places of business in California, because at least one of the inventors of the patents-in-suit resides in the Northern District of California, and because travel from the HTC offices to California is both faster and cheaper, there can be no doubt that a transfer would make trial of the infringement issues relating to the ’336,’749, and ’148 Patents less expensive. See Complaint 1-2; Lambert Decl., Ex. 7; Ho Decl.4; see also Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315 (court should also consider “all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive”). Moreover, the dispute over these patents is already part of a larger dispute over other MMP patents among the parties, and has been related to other cases in the same patent families which were filed concurrently with the first-filed California Action. See Lambert Decl. 11. The Volkswagen convenience factors related to the public interest also weigh in favor of transferring this case. Seesee also Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315-316. (1) The factor concerning “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion” is neutral on the question of whether this case should be transferred. (2) The factor concerning “the local interest in having localized interests decided at home” weighs in favor of transfer because both of the plaintiffs are California corporations and HTC has no ties to the Eastern District of Texas. (3) The factor addressing “the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case” is neutral because both the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California are experienced with and have expertise in complex patent cases. (4) The factor concerning “the avoidance of unnecessary conflict of laws problems when applying foreign law” is also neutral. Hence, on balance, these factors weigh in favor of transfer.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, HTC respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer this action to the Northern District of California.


Dated: December 1, 2008 Respectfully submitted,


__/s/ Kyle D. Chen_/s/___
William Sloan Coats
Kyle D. Chen
WHITE & CASE LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Deron R. Dacus
Eric H. Findlay
Ramey & Flock, P.C.
100 East Ferguson, Suite 500
Tyler, TX 75702
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HTC CORPORATION AND HTC
AMERICA, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 1, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS HTC CORPORATION’S AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATI E, TRANSFER with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing via electronic mail to all
counsel of record.

Kyle D. Chen

7. HTC admits that United States Patent No. 5,809,336 is entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock” and that a copy of United States Patent No. 5,809,336 was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Except as expressly admitted herein, HTC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
8. HTC admits that United States Patent No. 5,440,749 is entitled “High Performance, Low Cost Microprocessor Architecture” and that a copy of United States Patent No. 5,440,749 was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. Except as expressly admitted herein, HTC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
9. HTC admits that United States Patent No. 6,598,148 is entitled “High Performance Microprocessor Having Variable Speed System Clock” and that a copy of United States Patent No. 6,598,148 was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C. Except as expressly admitted herein, HTC lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.

COUNT 1

10. HTC realleges and incorporates by reference the entirety of its responses set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 above as if fully set forth herein.
11. Denied.
12. Denied.
13. Denied.

COUNT 2

14. HTC realleges and incorporates by reference the entirety of its responses set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 above as if fully set forth herein.
15. Denied.
16. Denied.
17. Denied.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18. HTC hereby incorporates by reference its answers to all paragraphs in the Complaint as though fully set forth herein. HTC denies that the TPL Entities are entitled to the relief sought in the TPL Entities’ prayer for relief against HTC, or otherwise.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

In addition to the defenses described below, HTC reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the patent laws of the United States and any other defenses, at law or in equity, which may now exist or in the future may be available based on discovery and further factual investigation in this case.
1. The Complaint and each of the allegations therein do not entitle the TPL Entities to relief because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. The Complaint and each of the allegations therein do not entitle the TPL Entities to relief because this action must be dismissed or transferred in deference to the valid, first-filed declaratory judgment action filed by HTC in the Northern District of California, HTC Corp. v. Technology Properties Ltd., No. C08 00882 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 8, 2008).
3. The Complaint and each of the allegations therein do not entitle the TPL Entities to relief because HTC has not infringed any claim of the patents-in-suit.
4. Each claim of the patents-in-suit is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to meet one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.
5. The Complaint and each of the allegations therein do not entitle the TPL Entities to relief because the TPL Entities’ claims are barred by laches, waiver and/or estoppel.
6. The TPL Entities’ recovery for alleged infringement, if any, is limited to any alleged infringement committed no more than six years prior to the filing of the Complaint, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 286.
7. The TPL Entities’ claims for relief concerning the patents-in-suit are limited by failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
8. The TPL Entities are barred by 35 U.S.C. § 288 from recovering any costs associated with this suit.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

HTC demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury presented in the Complaint and this Answer, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).

Dated: December 2, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
_/s/ Kyle D. Chen ____________
William Sloan Coats
Kyle D. Chen
WHITE & CASE LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Deron R. Dacus
Eric H. Findlay
Ramey & Flock, P.C.
100 East Ferguson, Suite 500
Tyler, TX 75702
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on December 2, 2008. Any other counsel of record will be served via facsimile transmission and first class mail.

_/s/ Kyle D. Chen ____________
KYLE D. CHEN

es ist ja prima wie schnell Du immer die neuesten Nachrichten reinstellst
ich gehe mal davon aus, das Du der engl. Sprache absolut mächtig bist
ich leider nicht ,darum wäre es nett, wenn Du diese Nachrichten mit zwei,drei Sätzen kommentieren
würdest, danke

hi,
da handelt es sich wie im falle von acer, asus etc. um juristische auseinandersetzungen,
die, denke ich,
neben der engl. sprache.......erstmal juristisch gedeutet werden müssten.
bei angora hatte da schon jemand nachgefragt (an einen juristen ronran oder wolfpack)
die sollten dazu ne stellungnahme abgeben.....
die wäre dann einfacher zu lesen und zu deuten....
ist zwar sehr nett von nassie, informativ und schnell......
aber für die meisten (mich eingeschlossen) derzeit zu schwer zu bewerten......
wichtig ist nur 1 : wie wird die patentbehörde bescheiden ?????

wie lange wird das denn noch dauern ???

wäre ich vermutlich reich .......
sorry......no ahnung.....

Frisch aus "Angoracom": Die Fa. Barco verklagt TPL - im gleichen Stil wie die T3 (Taiwanesen).
File Date: Monday, December 01, 2008
Plaintiff: Barco NV
Plaintiff Counsel:  Tod L. Gamlen, Daniel J. O'Connor, Edward K. Runyan of Baker & McKenzie LLP
Defendant: Technology Properties Ltd.
Patriot Scientific Corporation
Alliacense Ltd.
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Court: California Northern District Court
Judge:  Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Quelle: www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=42334 und  über Barco: www.barco.com/
Mehr ist zur Zeit noch nicht bekannt.
über Barco schreibt "DesignGuy":
Barco is one of the world's largest manufacturers of display technology, and I have dealt with them many times in the past 10 years regarding the use of their products in technology designs for projects of mine. I would ask what are the details of the lawsuit? Based on past suits, it would seem likely that Barco is infringing on TPL-represented patents, and if so it would be good to know which patents are involved.
Auf der Website von Barco: Umsatz > 700 Mill Euro.

wieso warten die nicht die ptso entscheidung ab ...????


im übrigen.......habicht9 kann kein englisch .......und wird es auch nicht mehr lernen...:-)

New Pacer--(ORDER) The Court sua sponte TRANSFERS (Signed By Judge Folsom)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD.,
INC. et al.,
vs.
HTC CORPORATION, et al.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD., INC. et al.,
vs.
ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC.

O R D E R

The Court sua sponte TRANSFERS the above styled cases to the Honorable T. John Ward. “District Judges have the inherent power to transfer cases from one to another for the expeditious administration of justice.” United States v. Stone, 411 F.2d 597, 599 (5th Cir. 1969); Chitimacha Tribe of La. v. Harry L. Laws Co., Inc., 690 F.2d 1157, 1162 (5th Cir. 1982). Because related, first-filed cases are pending before Judge Ward, this Court finds that a transfer will preserve the resources of the Court and the parties involved by avoiding separate claim construction hearings and divergent claim construction orders. The Court further finds that any prejudice suffered by theparties due to delay is outweighed by considerations of judicial efficiency and judicial comity.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed By Judge Folsom

ist das nun von Vor- oder Nachteil ???

Dann wird der Barco-Fall auch nach Texas gehen!

ist das eine positive Entscheidung. In Texas ist man auf Patentrechtsklagen spezialisiert. Zudem kennt der Richter schon aus dem Verfahren gegen die J3 das Thema.

wollte ich eigentlich meine Rente massiv aufbessern
hoffentlich erlebe ich ds noch

Netter link:
www.insidercow.com/history/company.jsp?company=ptsc

aus Angoracom-Beitrag