Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006

agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1029280#message

Das Verfahren bleibt in California.

3rd Pacer--JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
posted on Dec 18, 08 09:54PM
3rd Pacer--JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
HTC CORPORATION and HTC
AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
No. C 08 00882 JF
No. C 08 00884 JF
Both Cases Related to No. C 08 0877 JF

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

NO. C 08- 0882 JF AND C 08-0884 JF
ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. and
ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, MCM PORTFOLIO
LLC and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
This Joint Case Management Statement is submitted by the Parties in Case Nos. C 08 0882 and C 08 0884. These cases are related to Acer et al. v. TPL et al., Case No. C 08 0877 (collectively, the “Related Cases”). Pursuant to the Conference of Counsel conducted on December 15, 2008 and in preparation for the Case Management Conference now on Calendar for December 19, 2008, Plaintiffs HTC Corporation (“HTC Corp.”), HTC America Inc. (“HTC America”) (collectively “HTC”), ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (“ASUSTeK”), and ASUS Computer international (“ASUS International”) (collectively Plaintiffs) and Defendants Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”), Alliacense Limited (“Alliacense”), and MCM Portfolio LLC (“MCM”) (collectively “Defendants”) (the Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively “the Parties” and individually a “Party”) submit this Joint Case Management Statement.

I. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE

No dispute exists regarding personal jurisdiction. All parties have been served. Defendants disputed this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338, 2001 and 2202, and moved for the dismissal of each of the Related Cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (the “Motions to Dismiss”). As alternative relief in the Motions to Dismiss, Defendants also sought a change of venue under 28 U.S.C. 1440(a) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (where Defendants in these Related Cases subsequently filed infringement actions involving certain common parties and some common patents). Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed and argued, and this Court denied those Motions on October 21, 2008.

II. FACTS AND THE PRINCIPAL FACTUAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE

Plaintiffs filed their respective declaratory judgment actions on February 8, 2008. Through their original and amended complaints, Plaintiffs assert that they did not, have not, and do not infringe any valid claims of certain United States Patents controlled, owned, and licensed by the Defendants. Plaintiffs further contend that for months prior to the commencement of the related actions, Defendants contacted each of them claiming that products made, used, and/or offered for sale by the Plaintiffs infringe one or more claims of certain patents owned, controlled and licensed by the Defendants. Defendant TPL asserts it is a small-entity patent owner involved for over twenty years with the development, manufacture and marketing of innovative high technology products. As discussed below, TPL and the other Defendants assert that they hold patents on several different aspects of high-speed computer microprocessors and on devices related to flash memory, and that Plaintiffs have infringed those patents by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing products covered by its patent portfolios. Defendants’ patent portfolios are referred to as the MMP Portfolio and the Core Flash Portfolio.1 The patents in dispute among the Parties in the related actions are as follows:
HTC et al. v. TPL et al., Case No. C08 0882 (the “HTC Action”): HTC Corp. and HTC America seek declarations of non-infringement and/or invalidity, and Defendants seek damages and an injunction for infringement of the following United States Patents:
• 5,809,336 (the “’336 Patent”) (MMP Portfolio),
• 5,784,584 (the “’584 Patent”) (MMP Portfolio),2
• 5,440,749 (the “’749 Patent”) (MMP Portfolio),
• 6,598,148 (the “’148 Patent”) (MMP Portfolio), and
1 MMP Portfolio and Core Flash Portfolio are trademark designations used by the defendants to refer to their portfolio of patents.
2 The ’584 Patent is not part of Defendants’ Counterclaims against HTC. • 5,530,890 (the “’890 Patent”) (MMP Portfolio).
3 ASUSTeK et al. v. TPL et al., Case No. C 08-0884 JF (the “ASUSTeK Action”):
ASUSTeK and ASUS International (collectively “ASUS”) seek declarations of non-infringement and/or invalidity, and Defendants seek damages and an injunction for infringement of the following United States Patents:
• ’336 (MMP Portfolio),
• ’584 (MMP Portfolio),4
• ’749 (MMP Portfolio),
• ’890 (MMP Portfolio),
• 6,438,638 (the “’638 Patent”) (Core Flash),
• 6,976,623 (the “’623 Patent”) (Core Flash),
• 7,295,443 (the “’443 Patent”) (Core Flash), and
• 7,162,549 (the “’549 Patent”) (Core Flash).5

III. THE PRINCIPAL LEGAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE

The principal legal issues that the Parties dispute are:
• The meaning of various claim terms of the patents-in-suit;
• Whether the Plaintiffs infringe any of the patents-in-suit;
• Whether any infringement by Plaintiffs was willful; and
• Whether the patents-in-suit are invalid and/or unenforceable.

IV. MOTIONS AND HEARINGS

Prior Motions: Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were denied on October 21, 2008. Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Depositions and Trial Testimony of Plaintiff HTC’s Witnesses in this District (“Motion to Compel”) in the HTC Action. The Motion to Compel has 3 HTC added the ’890 patent to the California Action in its First Amended Complaint. 4 The ’584 Patent is not part of Defendants’ Counterclaims against ASUS. 5 ASUS filed a second amended complaint adding the following patents: the ’890, ’443 and ’549 Patents. See Section V. been fully briefed and argued. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Compel on December 16, 2008. Pending Motions: There are no pending motions. Anticipated Motions: Plaintiffs anticipate filing one or more motions regarding summary judgment and/or discovery. Defendants also anticipate filing one or more motions regarding summary judgment and/or discovery. In addition, the Parties anticipate motion practice and briefing concerning claim construction.

V. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

On February 8, 2008, HTC filed a declaratory judgment action in this Court against TPL, Alliacense, and Patriot (Case No. 5:08-cv-00882-JF) directed at the ’749, ’336, ’584 and ’148 Patents. On July 10, HTC filed a First Amended Complaint to include the ’890 Patent. On February 8, 2008, ASUSTeK filed a declaratory judgment action in this Court against TPL, Alliacense, and Patriot (Case No. 5:08-cv-00884-JF) directed at the ’749, ’336, ’623, ’638 and ’584 Patents. On February 13, 2008, ASUSTeK filed its First Amended Complaint adding ASUS International as a plaintiff, and MCM as an additional defendant. On September 23, 2008, ASUS filed a Second Amended Complaint to include the ’890, ’443 and ’549 Patents. On November 21, 2008, Defendants filed their Answers and Counterclaims in the Northern District of California declaratory judgment actions (Case Nos. 5:08-cv-00882-JF and 5:08-cv-00884-JF). On December 11, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Replies to the Defendants’ Counterclaims.

VI. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION

All Parties have taken appropriate steps to preserve any and all evidence that may be of relevance to the issues in the present action.

VII. DISCLOSURES

HTC and Defendants exchanged their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures on November 21, 2008. ASUS and Defendants agreed that they will exchange their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures on January 9, 2009. On December 5, 2008, Defendants served their Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions with respect to HTC pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1 and 3-2.

VIII. DISCOVERY

HTC served upon Defendants its First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things on December 15-16, 2008. Defendants have not served discovery upon Plaintiffs yet. The Parties conducted their Conferences of Parties under Rule 26(f) on July 15, 2008 and on December 15, 2008. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), the Parties submit the following discovery plan:
(1) Changes to disclosures. HTC expects to supplement its Initial Disclosures. The Parties currently do not expect any further changes to their disclosures or any deviations from
the requirements of Rule 26(a)(1).
(2) Subjects on which discovery may be needed. Essential discovery for Plaintiffs will include evidence relating to alleged invalidity, non-infringement and unenforceability of the patents-in-suit. Defendants will seek discovery relating to their counterclaims for patent infringement and willfulness.
(3) Issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information. The Parties anticipate that certain discovery may be produced in electronic form and have agreed to meet and confer, as necessary, to resolve any issues concerning electronic discovery as they arise. The Parties agree to meet and confer regarding the production format for electronic material.
(4) Issues relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material. The Parties will meet and confer as necessary to discuss this when the issue arises.
(5) Changes in limitations on discovery. Each side6 per case shall be entitled to conduct no more than twenty five (25) depositions, excluding expert witnesses. Each side per
6 A “side” shall consist of the whole group of Plaintiffs or the whole group of Defendants in a given action, meaning that there shall be separate limitations for both actions. case shall be entitled to propound no more than twenty five (25) interrogatories; provided, however, that the Parties reserve the right to approach the Court, upon a showing of good cause, for leave to serve additional interrogatories. Service of discovery requests and discovery responses among the Parties may be made by electronic mail (with copies sent via U.S. Mail), or by other means of service permitted under the F.R.C.P. Deadlines for discovery responses shall be determined by applicable procedural rules.
(6) Orders that should be entered by the court. The Parties agree that a protective order governing the treatment of confidential information will be required.
(7) Depositions and Trial. No depositions have been noticed or taken by either side yet. In their Motion to Compel, Defendants took the position that HTC should be required to produce all party witnesses for depositions and trial in the Northern District of California. In its Opposition, HTC took the position that overseas witnesses could be deposed in the Northern District of California on a case-by-case basis. This dispute has been briefed, heard and decided. The Court’s decision on December 16, 2008 ruled: “it will be less costly and disruptive to have all HTC’s 30(b)(6) designees deposed in this district. HTC shall bear all travel costs associated with their designated 30(b)(6) witness(es). The depositions of any non-30(b)(6) designated officers, directors, or HTC employees shall also take place in this district. However, defendants shall pay the costs of business class airfare for these deponents. Should defendants find it more cost effective to take the HTC employees’ consecutive depositions in Taiwan, they may arrange to do so with HTC.” HTC Action, Docket No. 68. The Court also ruled that any party may “move for an exception for any individual deposition, should the parties’ vigorous meet and confer efforts fail.” Id.
(8) Production of English language documents. Plaintiffs will produce English versions of all documents produced in these cases if such English versions are available. The parties further agree to meet and confer to establish a protocol concerning translations of foreign language documents, with consideration toward minimizing costs of translation and focusing any disputes as to translations.

IX. CLASS ACTIONS

This action is not a class action.


X. RELATED CASES

The HTC Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00882) and the ASUSTeK Action (Case No. 5:08-cv- 00884) have each been related to the Acer/Gateway Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00877). Barco NV, a Belgian corporation, filed a declaratory judgment action against TPL, Patriot and Alliacense on December 1, 2008 (Case No. 5:08-cv-05398) directed at the ’749, ’584 and ’890 Patents. Barco NV has moved to relate its declaratory judgment action to the Acer/Gateway Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00877), the HTC Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00882) and the ASUSTeK Action (Case No. 5:08-cv-00884) (“Motion to Relate Cases”). TPL, Patriot and Alliacense have opposed the Motion to Relate Cases, and the briefing has not been completed yet. See Docket No. 66 (HTC Action); Docket No. 68 (ASUSTeK Action). HTC and ASUS do not oppose the Motion to Relate Cases.

XI. RELIEF

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment against Defendants for non-infringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. Defendants seek damages from patent infringement and injunctions for the patents-in-suit except for the ’584 Patent.

XII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR

The Parties have engaged in mediation, but have not settled the disputes to date. See Docket Nos. 42 and 62 (ASUSTeK Action); Docket Nos. 33 and 50 (HTC Action).

XIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES

The Parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment. A declination to proceed before a Magistrate Judge for all purposes was filed in the Acer/Gateway Action 5:08-cv-00877, and the HTC Action and ASUSTeK Action have been deemed related cases. See Docket No. 4 (Acer/Gateway Action).

XIV. OTHER REFERENCES

This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

XV. NARROWING OF ISSUES

The Parties will most likely file one or more dispositive motions seeking to narrow the issues in this case. Both Parties anticipate filing one or more motions for summary judgment.

XVI. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE

Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that this case is not suitable for expedited handling.

XVII. SCHEDULING

During the November 7, 2008 Case Management Conference, the Court adopted the schedule shown below for the HTC case (No. 5:08-cv-00882-JF), which is the same schedule the Court adopted for the Acer case (No. 5:08-cv-00877-JF). For the ASUS case (No. 5:08-cv- 00884-JF), the Parties propose the schedule indicated in the chart below, which is based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, Patent Local Rules, Parties’ negotiations and the Case Management Conference to be held on December 19, 2008. The Court will hold a Status Conference after the Markman Ruling to set dates regarding the close of fact discovery, expert disclosures, close of expert discovery, deadline to file dispositive motions, mediation and all other
pre-trial dates.

EVENT DATE FOR HTC

(Case No. 5:08-cv-00882-JF)

PROPOSED DATE FOR ASUS

(Case No. 5:08-cv-00884-JF)
Rule 26(f)
conference
July 16, 2008
F.R.C.P. 26(f)
December 15, 2008
F.R.C.P. 26(f)
Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures
November 21, 2008
F.R.C.P. 26(a)
January 14, 2009
F.R.C.P. 26(a)
Due Date for Defendants’
Answers and/or Counterclaims
November 21, 2008 November 21, 2008

EVENT DATE FOR HTC

(Case No. 5:08-cv-00882-JF)
PROPOSED DATE FOR ASUS
(Case No. 5:08-cv-00884-JF)
Last Day to Serve Initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
Preliminary Infringement Contentions (and related documents)
December 5, 2008
(P.L.R. 3-1, 3-2)
January 9, 2009 as to MMP Portfolio January 23, 2009
as to Core Flash Portfolio
(P.L.R. 3-1, 3-2)
Last Day to Serve Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (and related documents)
January 20, 2009
(P.L.R. 3-3, 3-4)
February 24, 2009 as to MMP Portfolio April 28, 2009
as to Core Flash Portfolio
(P.L.R. 3-3, 3-4)
Last Day to Exchange List of “Proposed Terms and Claim Elements
for Construction” February 3, 2009
(P.L.R. 4-1)
March 6, 2009 as to MMP Portfolio
May 8, 2009 as to Core Flash Portfolio
(P.L.R. 4-1)
Last Day to Exchange “Preliminary Claim Constructions and
Extrinsic Evidence” February 23, 2009
(P.L.R. 4-2)
March 26, 2009 as to MMP Portfolio May 28, 2009
as to Core Flash Portfolio
(P.L.R. 4-2)
Last Day to File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
Statement
April 24, 2009
(P.L.R. 4-3)
April 24, 2009 as to MMP Portfoiio July 28, 2009
as to Core Flash Portfolio
(P.L.R. 4-3)
Claim Construction Discovery Closes May 25, 2009
(P.L.R. 4-4)
May 25, 2009 as to MMP Portfolio August 28, 2009
as to Core Flash Portfolio
EVENT DATE FOR HTC
(Case No. 5:08-cv-00882-JF)
PROPOSED DATE FOR ASUS
(Case No. 5:08-cv-00884-JF)
(P.L.R. 4-4)
Opening Claim Construction Brief June 8, 2009
(P.L.R. 4-5a)
June 8, 2009 as to MMP Portfolio
September 11, 2009
as to Core Flash Portfolio
(P.L.R. 4-5a)
Responsive Claim Construction Brief June 22, 2009
(P.L.R. 4-5b)
June 22, 2009
as to MMP Portfolio September 25, 2009 as to Core Flash
Portfolio
(P.L.R. 4-5b)
Reply Claim Construction Brief
June 29, 2009
(P.L.R. 4-5c)
June 29, 2009 as to MMP Portfolio October 2, 2009
as to Core Flash Portfolio
(P.L.R. 4-5c)
Patent Technology Tutorial (if desired by the Court)
* If requested by the Court *
July 20, 2009 (or at the Court’s convenience)
* If requested by the Court *
July 20, 2009 as to the MMP Portfolio (or at the Court’s
convenience) October 12, 2009
as to the Core Flash Portfolio (or at the Court’s convenience) Claim Construction Hearing [To Be Determined by the Court’s Schedule] [To Be Determined by the Court’s Schedule] Status Conference Three weeks after Claim Construction Hearing Three weeks after Claim Construction Hearings as to the MMP and Core Flash Portfolios, respectively Final Infringement Per P.L.R. 3-6 (30 days after Per P.L.R. 3-6 (30 days after claim construction ruling as to the MMP
EVENT DATE FOR HTC
(Case No. 5:08-cv-00882-JF)
PROPOSED DATE FOR ASUS
(Case No. 5:08-cv-00884-JF)
Contentions claim construction ruling) Portfolio) Per P.L.R. 3-6 (60 days after claim construction ruling as to the Core Flash Portfolio) Final Invalidity Contentions Per P.L.R. 3-6 (50 days after claim construction ruling) Per P.L.R. 3-6 (50 days after claim construction ruling as the MMP Portfolio) Per P.L.R. 3-6 (90 days after claim construction ruling as to the Core Flash Portfolio) Defendants to serve willfulness documents; opinion of counsel Per P.L.R. 3-8 (50 days after claim construction ruling) Per P.L.R. 3-8 (50 days after claim construction ruling as to the MMP Portfolio) Per P.L.R. 3-8 (90 days after claim construction ruling as to the Core Flash Portfolio) Close of Fact Discovery 6 months after final Invalidity Contentions 6 months after final Invalidity Contentions as to the MMP and Core Flash Portfolios, respectively Initial Expert Reports 30 days after Close of Fact Discovery 30 days after Close of Fact Discovery as to the MMP and Core Flash Portfolios, respectively Rebuttal Expert Reports 30 days after Initial Expert Reports 30 days after Initial Expert Reports as to the MMP and Core Flash Portfolios, respectively Close of Expert Discovery 2 weeks after Rebuttal Expert Reports 2 weeks after Rebuttal Expert Reports as to the MMP and Core Flash Portfolios, respectively Trial TBD at subsequent Case Management Conference in light of circumstances,
including number of disputed claim terms, accused products, and other relevant factors. TBD at subsequent Case Management Conference in light of circumstances, including number of disputed claim terms, accused products, and other relevant factors, as to the MMP and Core Flash Portfolios, respectively

XVIII. TRIAL

The case will be tried to a jury. Plaintiffs expect the duration of the trial will depend on numerous factors, including the number of disputed claim terms, the number of accused products, and other relevant factors that cannot be determined at this stage of the proceedings. Defendants expect trial will last 10-12 trial days for each patent portfolio.

XIX. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

Plaintiffs filed their “Certifications of Interested Entities or Persons” on March 21, 2008 (HTC Action, No. 5:08-cv-00882, Docket No. 7; ASUSTeK Action, No. 5:08-cv-00884, Docket No. 22) and state that aside from the named Parties, there is no such interest to report.
Dated: December 18, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ William S. Coats
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Ronald F. Lopez
By: /s/ Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendants

agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...s/1029284#message


New Pacer--EDoT--(Signed by Judge J.T.Ward)--ORDER--Ag... Motion for Extension
posted on Dec 18, 08 10:05PM
New Pacer--EDoT--(Signed by Judge J.T.Ward)--ORDER--Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to file


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
(1) TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, INC. and (2) PATRIOT
SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
JURY DEMANDED
vs.
(3) HTC CORPORATION and
(4) HTC AMERICA, INC.
Defendants.

ORDER

Came on for consideration the Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to file their Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer, and the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to file their Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer is GRANTED and the deadline for Plaintiffs, Technology Properties Limited, Inc. and Patriot Scientific Corporation, to file their response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer is extended up to and including December 29, 2008.

Signed by Judge J.T.Ward

The Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by the privately-held TPL Group and publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC). The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.

About ASUSTeK Computer Inc.

ASUSTeK is a leading company in the new digital era. With a global staff of more than eight thousand and a world-class R&D design team, the company's turnover for 2007 was 6.9 billion U.S. dollars. ASUS ranks among the top 10 IT companies in BusinessWeek's "InfoTech 100", and has been on the listing for 11 consecutive years. ASUS was also selected by the Wall Street Journal Asia as No.1 in quality and service in Taiwan.

About Alliacense

Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of Intellectual Property (IP) licensing programs. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, technology experts, and experienced business development/management executives, Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of TPL’s IP portfolios. Founded in 1988, The TPL Group has emerged as a coalition of high technology enterprises involved in the development, management and commercialization of proprietary product technologies as well as the design, manufacture and sales of proprietary products based on those technologies and corresponding IP assets. For more information, visit www.alliacense.com.

Alliacense and Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.




Contacts
Alliacense
Kelly Williams, 408-446-4222

The Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by the privately-held TPL Group and publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB: PTSC). The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.

About ASUSTeK Computer Inc.

ASUSTeK is a leading company in the new digital era. With a global staff of more than eight thousand and a world-class R&D design team, the company's turnover for 2007 was 6.9 billion U.S. dollars. ASUS ranks among the top 10 IT companies in BusinessWeek's "InfoTech 100", and has been on the listing for 11 consecutive years. ASUS was also selected by the Wall Street Journal Asia as No.1 in quality and service in Taiwan.

About Patriot Scientific Corporation

Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation provides data sharing and secure data solutions for a connected world. Patriot Scientific has recently embarked on an aggressive business expansion initiative complementing its recent acquisition of data sharing software provider, Crossflo Systems Inc. Patriot is evaluating full M&A and minority investments in early-stage technology companies in the data sharing software and secure networking technology sectors. These investments are funded with revenues generated, in a large part, from the continuing successful Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio licensing partnership with The TPL Group. Patriot Scientific’s integrated core intelligence solution addresses the critical data/information sharing needs of the healthcare industry, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and federal, state, and local public safety and law enforcement agencies. For more information on Patriot Scientific Corporation, visit: www.ptsc.com.

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.



Contacts
for Patriot Scientific Corporation
Angela Hartley, 760-547-2700 ext. 102

mal wieder schneller gewesen
;-)

bähhhhhh ........

Aber mal was anderes ...... ich denke.....das macht doch nen schlanken Fuß ........ Auf einmal....is Asus mit im Boot ????
Jaja ....ich glaube, ich kann mir bald mein Custom Bike von Orange Country bestellen .....

Das Gute an dieser Nachricht ist, das eine Partei aus der Klage ausgeschieden ist. Jetzt müssen Acer&Friends
allein figthen oder die knicken auch ein.
Heute oder morgen müßte eigentlich der nächste Shareholderletter kommen. Bin gespannt was der CEO schreibt und welche Perspektiven er für 2009 beschreibt.

sehe ich genau so .... wobei ich eine dicke Order setzte, sobald die Patente bestätigt wurden ....
dann kaufe ich gerne nochmal zu 0,20 ..... bis dahin bin ich satt ......
Trade gerade etwas konservativer .... seit 3 Wochen mit Gildemeister ...... die laufen gut ....
die Gewinne setzte ich dann wieder in PTSC rein ....

www.duttonassociates.com/research/ptsc/...ptsc_note_122208.pdf

On December 1, Crossflo finalized the acquisition of the assets of Iameter which expands Crossflo's healthcare product offering. Iameter provides a healthcare software platform for hospitals and physician groups to assess the quality of care delivery against state and federal healthcare standards to help them realize quality improvements and reduced cost. The type of solutions Iameter offers have recently become important to healthcare providers because quality of care will now affect the amounts healthcare providers are reimbursed for services provided to Medicare patients. This fundamental change in the nation's largest healthcare reimbursement system makes Iameter's technology a timely and compelling addition to Crossflo's healthcare data sharing technology.
Iameter's software product and services were featured in a recent HP webinar outlining the HP-Crossflo "Health Information Solution". It was attended by 200 "web connections" representing potential customers and partners for HP's solution. Dr. Bill Mollenbrock of Crossflo was the guest speaker for the session.
We are continuing to update our assessment of the market opportunities for the Crossflo technology, including the recent addition of the Iameter product. While Crossflo is in early stage revenue development, its sales assumptions and estimates have a great deal of variability. This is particularly true in the public/government sector. We expect to provide a plan for Crossflo's revenues for the period March 1, 2009 through February 28, 2010 (aligned with Patriot fiscal quarters) in January. We are initiating a rolling six quarter forecast with Crossflo and, while we do not expect to provide quarterly revenue guidance on the Crossflo business at this early stage, we will update the status of progress to our plan from time to time.
Update on other business and M&A activities at Patriot
The key theme of Patriot's evolving M&A strategy is to leverage our current capital resources (cash and stock), and the future earnings generated from the company's joint ownership of the MMP(TM) Portfolio, into a viable growth-oriented operating company. Patriot's favorable cash position and trading liquidity are attractive to many companies (both public and private) seeking cash to grow and liquidity.
With Crossflo's data sharing tools as the core, we are continuing to evaluate opportunities to acquire complementary software products with specific emphasis on healthcare and public safety applications. With the closure of the Iameter transaction strengthening our healthcare solution, we are placing additional short term emphasis on opportunities that will expand our public safety offering with particular focus on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fusion Centers, emergency response, law enforcement and other inter-agency data sharing applications
With respect to the MMP portfolio, this morning we announced that TPL/Alliacense signed ASUSTeK as a new licensee. You may be aware that ASUSTeK had been a party in litigation with us, and TPL, and we are pleased that they have decided to settle and become a licensee, avoiding further litigation expense.
I will endeavor early next year to provide a more thorough update of the MMP portfolio and USPTO activities.
Comments on shareholder inquiries
1) Why doesn't Patriot have a Chairman of the Board? 2) What are our current thoughts on pursuing a NASDAQ, or other exchange, listing? 3) Update on plans for a shareholder conference call following release of Patriot's Q2 2009 results
1) Why doesn't Patriot have a Chairman of the Board?
Several shareholders have inquired as to why Patriot does not have a designated Chairman of the Board, replacing David Pohl. The Chairman role is not a position that bestows any additional, or unique, powers, liabilities or responsibilities on any individual member of the Board of Directors and there is no corporate requirement that Patriot designate one Board member as its Chairman.
Currently, the Company's Executive Committee, consisting of Carl Johnson, Gloria Felcyn and Helmut Falk (chaired by Carl Johnson) serve as "co-chairmen" and I have taken on some of the administrative Board activities that Mr. Pohl had provided. We are pleased with the function of the Board of Directors up to this point and do not have a plan in the near term to designate anyone solely as Chairman.
2) What are our current thoughts on pursuing a NASDAQ listing?
One of the Company's objectives is to pursue, at the right time, a listing on a more broadly traded exchange, probably NASDAQ. During my last trip to New York City I had the opportunity to meet with the NASDAQ representative for new listings and discussed the prospects for Patriot. Based on the current listing criteria NASDAQ has established, Patriot could pursue listing on NASDAQ's Global Market if we met the share price criteria. All other capital and financial requirements can be met. Therefore, the decision to pursue a NASDAQ, or other exchange, listing, is not if, but when.
As I'm sure you can appreciate, Patriot's management and the Board are keenly sensitive to the concerns of the shareholders with respect to share price and the potential for a reverse split of Patriot shares. There is no discussion to pursue a reverse split under the current market conditions, however, I have begun dialogue with the Board about the conditions, both internal and external, which would serve as a trigger to launch the process.
We believe that it will be in the best long term interest of shareholders to seek listing on a more broadly traded exchange, but do not feel that current business conditions warrant active pursuit of this goal today.
3) Update on plans for a shareholder conference call following the release of Patriot's Q2 2009 results
As announced at the annual shareholder meeting, Patriot will conduct a shareholder Q&A conference call following the release of its second quarter earnings results in January. At the present time, we expect to release Q2 results on Friday, January 9, 2009 after the market close.
As this is not a traditional earnings call, we plan to conduct the call at 1:30 pm on Tuesday, January 13, 2009. The two business day offset should give all interested shareholders time to contemplate our results and formulate questions for the call.
We hope this can be a productive opportunity for shareholders to connect directly with management on issues of the Company's direction and a means to more broadly clarify key points affecting the Company's direction.
I am looking forward to participating in this call and utilizing future calls as an additional means of direct shareholder dialogue in 2009. Details for the conference call logistics will be released in early January and also included in the Company's Q2 release on January 9, 2009.
On a separate topic, I'm also pleased to report that in December we've seen movement in the ARS market and have received partial redemption of ARS obligations from both the state of Florida and Washington. We are hopeful that this points to a concerted effort by the issuing agencies, and government, to provide for broader redemptions and liquidity in 2009.
As always, it is my objective to continually improve the quality, uniformity and responsiveness of our communications to shareholders and the marketplace, and I will continue to look forward to your comments and inquiries.
I trust this letter has provided you with additional information regarding the status of key business initiatives at Patriot Scientific and the progress we are making toward building a "new Patriot" with solid future growth and profitability. As the New Year approaches, we can reflect on the progress that the Company has made, and the challenges yet ahead, in positioning Patriot for future growth and success.
On behalf of myself, the management of Patriot Scientific and the Board of Directors, I'd like to wish each of you the best for the holiday season and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.
Sincerely,
Rick Goerner President/CEO Patriot Scientific Corporation
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the Company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) and Alliacense are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). PTSC is a trademark of Patriot Scientific Corporation. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.
SOURCE: Patriot Scientific Corporation

moin moin ...
ich habe mir den letter angesehen und habe mal folgende frage zum theme :
NASDAQ listing
er schreibt ja, dass ...Based on the current listing criteria NASDAQ has established, Patriot could pursue listing on NASDAQ’s Global Market if we met the share price criteria...
und alle anderen kriterien können und sind erfüllt....aber wie gesagt, der share price ....
es geht wohl nicht mehr um das ob...sondern nur noch um das wann (falls ich das richtig verstanden habe)...
1. neben der nasdaq...was für ein segment käme denn noch in frage (vor-nachteile ????)
2. den abschnitt mit dem "reverse split" habe ich nicht deuten können (verstanden).
da gibts keine diskussion über einen reversesplit zu den derzeitigen marktsituationen....
.....however, I have begun dialogue with the Board about the conditions, both internal and external, which would serve as a trigger to launch the process.
.......
-Was und wie ist das gemeint .....??????
kommt wohl nur ein reversesplit in frage ????? um den shareprice zu erfüllen ????
wenn ja (wann und wie auch immer) ...... was ist strategisch besser ....
1. jetzt noch step by step zu kaufen ?
2. nach einer entscheidung der patentbehörde (auch mit aufschlag)
3. vor einem reversesplit ?

danke für eine stellungnahme

secfilings.nasdaq.com/...pe=8%2DK&RcvdDate=12%2F23%2F2008&pdf=

www.holocomnetworks.com/default.html

Die website wurde neu gestaltet.

Die Diskussion über den Segmentwechsel wird schon lange geführt. Der Shareprice muß den Nasdaq-Anforderungen genügen. Bisher verlautete das BoD immer, das ein reverce-split nicht durchgeführt wird. Die haben bisher immer auf eine positive Entscheidung der USPTO gehofft. Die ist aus meiner Sicht auch notwendig
um wieder den Kurs in alte Höhen zu treiben. Ob jetzt nachkaufen oder erst später, ist reine Spekulation. Wenn du Geld über hast und garantiert die nächsten 12 Monate nicht brauchst, ist ein Kauf um die 13 US-Cents bestimmt kein Fehler.

New Pacer--PLAINTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 5:08-cv-00884-JF Document 71 Filed 12/24/2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. and ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No. C 08 00884 JF (HRL) (related to C 08 00877 JF and C 08 00882)

PLAINTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38 and Civil Local Rule 3-6, Asustek Computer, Inc. and Asus Computer International hereby demand a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.
Dated: December 24, 2008
WHITE & CASE LLP
By: /s/ Taryn Lam
Taryn Lam
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. and ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL

www.duttonassociates.com/research/ptsc/...ptsc_note_122908.pdf

kommen die Zahlen. Bin mal gespannt ob auch Zahlen für Crossflow dabei sind.

Bin am überlegen ob ich im Vorfeld noch Aktien kaufen soll.

Was denkt ihr ?

Frage und Anregung:
Wäre es nicht sinnvoll zu warten, bis eine Entscheidung der Patentbehörde erfolgt ist, um Aktien zu kaufen.
Wie würde der Kurs wohl nach einer positiven Entscheidung der Patentbehörde aussehen?
Wird der Kurs dann wohl wieder auf 0,30, 0,50 oder 0,70 laufen ?
Nach einer positiven Entscheidung werden auch andere Sachen wohl anders laufen, womit wieder dicke Phantasie in die Aktie kommt und damit doch steigende Kurse.
Sollte die Patentbehörde negativ bescheiden, denke ich an Kurse um die 0,02 oder so.
Sollte aber eine positive Entscheidung fallen, kannst Du wohl eher noch mal ne Order zu 0,13-0,17 reinsetzen, dann bekommst Du bestimmt welche bezahlst dann f 6000 Euronen und wirst wohl ein paar Wochen später durch den Hype 0,50 oder mehr bekommen......aber bestimmt verdoppelt, wenn nicht mehr, bei geringerem Risiko.
Möglichkeit 2: jetzt 50000 für 5000 also ´zwar 10000 Aktien mehr für Kack 1000 Euro weniger mit wesentlich höherem Risiko.

Meine Taktik : Bei positiver Entscheidung setzte ich alles auf die 12 !
10000 Euronen Order mit Tageslimit 0,17 (also einfach mal 70% höher als jetzt) und dann warte ich ein paar Wochen ab und Bingo !

was interessantes zum Lesen, der neue Cohen- Research- Report

www.cohenresearch.com/reports/ptsc_01-05-09.pdf


Grüsse CJ

agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/.../1037739#message:
New Pacer--CLERK’S NOTICE
posted on Jan 06, 09 11:39PM
New Pacer--CLERK’S NOTICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD., et al.,
Defendants.
HTC CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

CLERK’S NOTICE

To all Parties and Attorneys of Record: Defendants’ motion for reconsideration will be heard on January 30, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Jeremy Fogel. Any response to the motion shall be filed and served on or before January 21, 2009. Any reply shall be filed and served on or before January 28, 2009.
DATED: 1/6/09 For the Court
Richard W. Weiking, Clerk
By: /s/
Diana Munz
Courtroom Deputy Clerk


agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/.../1037745#message:
2nd Pacer--STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFEND
posted on Jan 06, 09 11:48PM
2nd Pacer--STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, and
ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.

STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”), and Alliacense Limited (collectively, “Defendants”) for declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 patent"), 5,784,584 (“the ‘584 patent”), 5,440,749 (“the ‘749 patent”); WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, to Transfer Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”); WHEREAS, on October 21, 2008, this Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; WHEREAS, on December 19, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider this Court’s Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; WHEREAS, this Court granted Defendants leave to file a motion for reconsideration on December 19, 2008 and set a hearing on Defendants’ motion for reconsideration for January 30, 2009; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a briefing schedule for Defendants’ motion for reconsideration;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:
(1) Plaintiffs have up to and including January 16, 2009 to file their Opposition to Defendants’ motion for reconsideration; and
(2) Defendants have up to and including January 23, 2009 to file their Reply in support of their motion for reconsideration.
Dated: January 6, 2009 K&L GATES
By: Harold H. Davis
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and
GATEWAY, INC.
Dated: January 6, 2009 FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
By: John L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: January 6, 2009 KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE
By: Charles T. Hoge
Attorneys for Defendants
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION


agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/.../1037750#message:
New Pacer--(EDoT) DEFENDANTS HTC CORPORATION’S AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S REPLY TO
posted on Jan 07, 09 12:05AM
New Pacer--(EDoT) DEFENDANTS HTC CORPORATION’S AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS HTC CORPORATION’S AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S REPLY
TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively “HTC”) respectfully submit the following Reply to Plaintiffs Technology Properties Limited’s and Patriot Scientific Corporation’s (collectively “TPL”) opposition to HTC’s Motion to Dismiss.

I. INTRODUCTION

TPL’s opposition rests entirely on a pending motion seeking reconsideration of Judge Fogel’s rejection of TPL’s Motion to Dismiss, to Transfer Venue, and to Stay (“TPL’s Motion to Dismiss”) filed in the Northern District of California on December 19, 2008.1 TPL’s Motion for Reconsideration is without merit and provides no basis for denial of the present motion for at least two reasons. First, TPL’s pending Motion for Reconsideration is without merit. It dramatically overstates the significance of the settlement between TPL and the ASUSTeK entities. That settlement does not change the numerous grounds on which Judge Fogel based his decision to the parties have not fully briefed the Motion for Reconsideration, which is scheduled to be heard on January 30, 2009. retain the TPL cases in the Northern District of California. Nor does the settlement enable TPL to escape the mandate of controlling law, including the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In re TS Tech USA Corp., No. 2009-M888, 2008 WL 5397522 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2008), which confirms that dismissal or transfer of the present action is required under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Second, judicial efficiency requires the dismissal or transfer of the duplicative Texas Actions pending in this district, regardless of Judge Fogel’s ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration. If Judge Fogel denies TPL’s Motion for Reconsideration, which HTC expects he will do, established law would require this Court to defer to Judge Fogel’s decision and dismiss the duplicative, later-filed Texas Actions. On the other hand, even if Judge Fogel takes the unlikely course of granting TPL’s Motion for Reconsideration, the California Actions, which are earlier-filed and further advanced procedurally, would be transferred to this Court and would subsume the Texas Actions. In short, there is absolutely no justification for two sets of parallel actions involving identical issues and parties to proceed in tandem. Therefore, this Court should grant HTC’s Motion to Dismiss without delay.

II. ARGUMENT

A. TPL’s Motion for Reconsideration Does Not Change the Applicable Case Law, which Mandates Dismissal or Transfer of This Action. TPL relies on its pending Motion for Reconsideration in the Northern District of California to argue that HTC’s Motion to Dismiss is premature. In support of this argument, TPL claims that the settlement between TPL and the ASUSTeK entities constitutes a material change in the circumstances underlying Judge Fogel’s October 21, 2008 Order. But TPL’s arguments grossly exaggerate the significance of the ASUSTeK settlement on the determination of the proper forum for the parties’ claims. Nothing in the October 21 Order suggests that ASUSTeK’s involvement constituted a “major foundation” for that ruling, as TPL argues. See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp’n Brief”) at 3, Docket (“Dkt.”) No. 25. Judge Fogel’s order was instead based on a straightforward application of the first-tofile rule and analysis of the convenience factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), all of which overwhelmingly supported venue in the Northern District of California. As detailed in HTC’s Motion to Dismiss, the Fifth Circuit follows the first-to-file rule, which favors the first-filed forum over any other forum in which subsequent actions involving the same issues are filed. See Defendants HTC Corporation’s and HTC America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, Transfer (“HTC’s Motion to Dismiss”) at 6, Dkt. No. 20; see also West Gulf Maritime Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local, 751 F.2d 721, 730 (5th Cir. 1985). This rule militates strongly in favor of dismissal of the present, second-filed action. Furthermore, application of this rule is not affected in any way by ASUSTeK’s settlement with TPL: regardless of the patents involved and regardless of any district’s familiarity with those patents, the California Actions remain the first-filed actions. 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.”), Exhibit (“Ex.”) 3 (“Order Denying Motions to Dismiss, to Transfer Venue, and to Stay”) at 4-6, Dkt. No. 20. Recent controlling authorities further indicate that § 1404(a) does not permit this Court to
retain the present action in this district. The Fifth Circuit has enunciated the factors that are applicable to a § 1404(a) venue transfer analysis in In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314 n.9 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Volkswagen II”), and as Judge Fogel recognized in his October 21 Order, these convenience factors weigh heavily in favor of resolving the dispute between the parties in California: Three of the four TPL entities are headquartered or have offices in this district, and three of the four Plaintiff entities have their primary places of business in this district. Thus, this district affords direct access to witnesses and tangible evidence, and makes travel for parties and witnesses most convenient. Plaintiffs conduct all U.S. manufacturing and sales through their U.S. subsidiaries, all of which are named as Plaintiffs in this action, and three of which are located in this district. Lambert Decl., Ex. 3 at 6. In an even more recent decision, the Federal Circuit applied the Volkswagen II factors to hold that it was a clear abuse of discretion for this Court to deny a motion to transfer venue under circumstances very similar to those presented here. See In re TS Tech USA Corp., 2008 WL 5397522, at *2-5. In that case, as here, the cost of willing witnesses’ attendance was considerably lower, the relative ease of access to sources of proof was higher, and the localized interest was much more significant in the petitioner’s preferred district than in the Eastern District of Texas. Id. TPL’s Opposition fails to raise any argument that these factors are affected in any way by the ASUSTeK settlement because there simply is no such argument: the witnesses, evidence and localized interest remain centered in California. B. Dismissal or Transfer of the Present Actions Would Be Required Regardless of the Outcome of TPL’s Motion for Reconsideration. Finally, even if Judge Fogel were to grant TPL’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Dismiss, the Texas Actions would remain completely duplicative of the California Actions. There is not a claim, defense, or legal or factual issue raised in the present action that is not already encompassed by the pending California Actions. As TPL concedes, in the unlikely event Judge Fogel grants TPL’s Motion for Reconsideration, the California Actions would be transferred to this Court. See Opp’n Brief at 3. At that point, the Texas Actions would then yield to the first-filed California Actions, which fully subsume the claims and issues in the Texas Actions and are much further along procedurally. The parties to the California Actions have participated in multiple case management conferences, have filed joint case management statements, have exchanged discovery (including Preliminary Infringement Contentions), have agreed to a case schedule, and have engaged in motion practice over discovery disputes. The Texas Actions, on the other hand, remain in their procedural infancy. Even if TPL’s Motion for Reconsideration is granted, judicial efficiency would inevitably require dismissal of the Texas Actions in favor of the California Actions.2 No purpose is served by maintaining this duplicative 2 In the event the California Actions are transferred to this District, this Court could, of course, stay the Texas Actions to allow the further-along California Actions to proceed. But because the Texas Actions are entirely duplicative of the California Actions, staying the Texas Actions would do nothing more than clog the Court's docket with cases that have no activity and serve no action which involves both issues and parties identical to those in the first-filed California Actions.

III. 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: January 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
Kyle D. Chen
William Sloan Coats
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.
purpose. Dismissal of the Texas Actions is the better course, regardless of Judge Fogel's decision on TPL's Motion for Reconsideration.

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 January 6, 2009. Any other counsel of record will be served via facsimile transmission and first class mail.

Kyle D. Chen

Wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, soll der "Fall" von Texas nach Californien geholt werden.
Ist das nun gut oder schlecht???

Quelle: yahoo-group-PTSC, mail an die Mitglieder der Gruppe.
Ich weiß zwar nicht ob er einverstanden ist, finde aber seine Meinung wichtig.

Apparently based on some of the PACER data that Wolf kindly continues
to post on Agora, I have had a few calls on what all of this means
and where we stand.  I don't have much time right now, but here's a
quick summary.

Judge Fogel in CA has set a hearing on TPL's motion to reconsider a
transfer to TX, based upon the Asustek settlement.  There mere fact
that a hearing has been set gives no indication whatsoever of the
outcome, i.e., Judge Fogel has merely agreed to hear the issue.  He
may or may not give his ruling on the hearing date, but the
likelihood, as we have seen with other motions during this long saga,
is that he will come out with a written ruling at a later date.

Meanwhile, HTC has filed a reply to TPL's position on HTC's motion to
dismiss in TX with Judge Ward, taking the position that what Judge
Fogel does is irrelevant.  In essence, HTC's position continues to be
based on the "first filed" rule, i.e., that the T3-CA cases were
filed before the T3-TX cases.

IMO, there can be no dispute that the T3 cases in CA are
indeed "first filed", even though they are declaratory actions (no
motetary damages sought).  Thus, the ultimate outcome will be
determined by whether the "first filed" rule should prevail over the
concept that the TX court has had prior experience with the MMP
(Markman ruling, etc.).  As a practical matter, I would expect Ward
to wait on Fogel to rule on the reconsideration before making his
(Ward's) own ruling on the motion to dismiss.

I have done this very hurriedly, so I apologize if I have made any
errors.  Will try to look it over again later and make any correction
that might be necessary.

2009-01-07

Webcast Notification: Patriot Scientific Corporation Shareholder Call

CARLSBAD, Calif., Jan. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Patriotic Scientific Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC - News) announces the following Webcast:

What:     Patriot Scientific Corporation Webcast

When:    January 13, 2009 @ 4:30 p.m. EST

Where:   www.videonewswire.com/event.asp?id=54410

How:      Live over the Internet -- Simply log on to the web at the
             address above.

Contact:  Angela Hartley, Investor Relations at Patriot Scientific
              Corporation, 760 547 2700 x102

To listen to the live webcast, please go to this website approximately fifteen minutes prior to the start of the call to register, download and install any necessary audio software. If you are unable to participate during the live webcast, the call will be archived on the Web site www.ptsc.com/ for thirty days.

To participate in the conference call by telephone, please call 800-860-2442 (toll free in the U.S.) or 412-858-4600 (toll call outside the U.S.) and request the "Patriot Scientific" conference call.

Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation provides data sharing and secure data solutions for a connected world. Patriot Scientific has recently embarked on an aggressive business expansion initiative complementing its recent acquisition of data sharing software provider, Crossflo Systems Inc. Patriot is evaluating full M&A and minority investments in early-stage technology companies in the data sharing software and secure networking technology sectors. These investments are funded with revenues generated, in a large part, from the continuing successful Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) Portfolio licensing partnership with The TPL Group. Patriot Scientific's integrated core intelligence solution addresses the critical data/information sharing needs of the healthcare industry, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and federal, state, and local public safety and law enforcement agencies. For more information on Patriot Scientific Corporation, visit: www.ptsc.com/.

www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/836564/.../ptsc_10q-113008.htm

The Company will be conducting its first Webcast on January 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM ET to discuss matters pertinent to its business. Participants may go to www.videonewswire.com/event.asp?id=54410 and listen live over the Internet.

Participants are encouraged to access the website approximately fifteen minutes prior to the start of the call to register, download and install any necessary audio software. If you are unable to participate during the live webcast, the call will be archived on the Web site www.ptsc.com/ for thirty days.

To participate in the conference call by telephone, please call 800-860-2442 (toll free in the U.S.) or 412-858-4600 (toll call outside the U.S.) and request the "Patriot Scientific" conference call.

Patriot Scientific is the joint owner, with The TPL Group, of the Moore Microprocessor Patent, or MMP(TM) Portfolio, key patents covering the design of microprocessor chips which are used throughout the world in products ranging from computers and cameras to printers, automobiles and industrial devices. Microprocessor chips are the "brain" of nearly every electronic and electrical device including home appliances, televisions, video game players and cell phones.

About Patriot Scientific Corporation

Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, Patriot Scientific Corporation provides data sharing and secure data solutions for a connected world. Patriot Scientific has recently embarked on an aggressive business expansion initiative complementing its recent acquisition of data sharing software provider, Crossflo Systems Inc. Patriot is evaluating full M&A and minority investments in early-stage technology companies in the data sharing software and secure networking technology sectors. These investments are funded with revenues generated, in a large part, from the continuing successful Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) Portfolio licensing partnership with The TPL Group. Patriot Scientific's integrated core intelligence solution addresses the critical data/information sharing needs of the healthcare industry, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and federal, state, and local public safety and law enforcement agencies. For more information on Patriot Scientific Corporation, visit: www.ptsc.com.

About the MMP Portfolio

The Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio contains intellectual property that is jointly owned by the privately-held TPL Group and publicly-held Patriot Scientific Corporation PTSC. The MMP Portfolio includes seven U.S. patents as well as their European and Japanese counterparts. It is widely recognized that the MMP Portfolio protects fundamental technology used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), embedded processors and system-on-chip (SoC) devices. Manufacturers of microprocessor-based products can learn more about how to participate in the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program by contacting: mmp-licensing@alliacense.com.

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

SOURCE: Patriot Scientific Corporation

CONTACT:

Patriot Scientific Corporation Angela Hartley 760-547-2700 ext. 102

Copyright Business Wire 2009

-0-

KEYWORD: United States
North America
California
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: Technology
Data Management
Networks
Software
SUBJECT CODE: Earnings
Filing
Webcast

Von Wolfpackvoltaire aus:
agoracom.com/ir/patriot/forums/discussion/...040643#messageNew Pacer-- MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO
posted on Jan 09, 09 11:43PM

New Pacer-- MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT


N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
(1) TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, INC. and (2) PATRIOT
SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
(1) ACER, INC.
(2) ACER AMERICA CORPORATION
(3) GATEWAY, INC.
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, AND GATEWAY
INC.’S SIXTH UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Defendants Acer Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) file this Sixth Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint and would show the Court as follows:
1. On November 26, 2008, Defendants filed a Fifth Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. (Docket No. 18.)
2. The Court granted the motion and Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint was due on January 16, 2009. (Docket No. 19.) This date accommodated all parties because Defendants in this action had filed a Motion for Leave to Amend (“Motion to Amend”) to add the remaining patents asserted in the three related cases before this Court to the action before the Northern District of California. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Amend was set for December 19, 2008.
3. On December 19, 2008, Plaintiffs in this action filed a Motion for Reconsideration of their Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue (“Motion for Reconsideration”) which was previously denied by the Court in Northern District of California. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is based on the settlement of a related action before the Court in Northern District of California. The hearings on the Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Amend are set for January 30, 2009.
4. The Parties seek the current extension in order to have a final ruling regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and Defendants’ Motion to Amend.
5. Counsel for all parties have stipulated to the current extension. The parties respectfully request that Defendants be granted an extension up to and including February 27, 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 Sixth Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint and that Defendants have up to and including February 27, 2009 to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint, and that they have all other and further relief to which they are justly \entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Benjamin Setnick
John H. McDowell, Jr.
Texas State Bar No. 13570825
K&L Gates LLP
1717 Main Street
Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75201
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 January 9, 2009. Any other counsel of record will be served via facsimile transmission and first class mail.
Benjamin Setnick

Eine zentrale Rolle dabei soll die IT spielen. Immer wieder erklärt Obama in diesen Wochen, vor allem in die Infrastruktur des in Teilen maroden Gesundheitssystems investieren zu wollen - um langfristig Einsparungen zu erzielen. Der Staat soll Krankenhäusern und Arztpraxen helfen, elektronische Patientenakten einzuführen.

Während des Wahlkampfs hatte Obama Staatshilfen über 50 Mrd. $ versprochen, mit Schwerpunkt Health-IT. Schon bald, im Rahmen seines Konjunkturpakets zur Rettung der Wirtschaft, will er 10 Mrd. $ bereitstellen, um die IT in Kliniken und Arztpraxen zu modernisieren.

Schleppende Entwicklung

Der künftige US-Präsident und sein Minister: Barack Obama (r.) und Tom DaschleDas beflügelt die Wachstumsfantasien im Markt. Die neue Regierung könnte den gesamten Health-IT-Markt in Fahrt bringen, prognostiziert Todd Weller, Analyst bei Stifel Nicolaus. Insbesondere Anbieter, die sich auf elektronische Gesundheitsakten spezialisiert hätten, könnten profitieren.

Der Impuls würde der Branche guttun. Ähnlich wie in Europa verläuft die Einführung elektronischer Patientenakten in den USA nur schleppend. Zwischen 100 und 200 Anbieter teilen sich das Geschäft, darunter der Marktführer für Praxissoftware Allscripts, die Gesundheitssparte von Google, der Portalbetreiber WebMD sowie Athenahealth und Quality Systems.

Ähnlich wie im deutschen Markt gibt es dabei sehr unterschiedliche Modelle, die meisten noch in der Pilotphase. Einige Patientenakten sind an Versicherer oder bestimmte Klinikketten gebunden, andere funktionieren über Portale im Internet und richten sich direkt an die Patienten.

Je nach Geschäftsmodell speichern sie eine mehr oder weniger große Menge medizinischer Daten und stellen diese Ärzten und Kliniken zur Verfügung. Ziel ist es, die Therapie besser, sicherer und billiger zu machen - und den Patienten mehr Verantwortung für ihre Gesundheit zu übertragen.

Das wohl größte Projekt verantwortet Kaiser Permanente, eine Krankenversicherung mit eigenen Kliniken, Ärztezentren und Apotheken. Von den 8,7 Millionen Mitgliedern nutzen bereits heute 2,6 Millionen eine elektronische Akte, 80.000 neue User kommen jeden Monat dazu. Mehr als 3 Mrd. $ hat die Non-Profit-Organisation bislang in das weit entwickelte System investiert.

Pilotprojekt mit Microsoft
Inzwischen können die Versicherten unter ihrem Online-Account Termine bei ihrem Arzt absprechen, ihre Labordaten abrufen, Medikamente nachbestellen oder E-Mails an ihre Ärzte versenden. Alle Behandlungsergebnisse und Diagnosedaten werden online gespeichert, der Medikamentenverbrauch dokumentiert.

Alle 14.000 Ärzte, 37 Kliniken und 416 Praxiszentren im Kaiser-Permanente-Netzwerk sind angebunden, die Ärzte sind verpflichtet, die Datenbanken zu pflegen und die elektronischen Dienste zu nutzen. "Wir haben das System überall eingeführt", sagt Anna-Lisa Silvestre, Leiterin des Projekts. "Manchmal ist es wie inmitten einer Revolution."

In einem Pilotprojekt arbeitet Kaiser Permanente seit Mitte 2008 auch mit dem Softwaregiganten Microsoft zusammen, der mit seiner Plattform Healthvault Speicherplatz für Patientendaten bietet. "Noch ist es ein Pilotprojekt", sagt Silvestre. "Aber wenn es gut läuft, könnten wir auch die restlichen Akten dort speichern."

Die Vorteile des Projekts

Große Hoffnung - Einsparpotenzial durch elektronische PatientenaktienMit Healthvault sorgt Microsoft seit einem Jahr für Wirbel. Es war der Einstieg in den verbraucherorientierten Gesundheitsmarkt. Zahlreiche Partnerunternehmen wie Kaiser, der private US-Versicherer Aetna, die berühmte Mayo Clinic oder die American Heart Association kooperieren seitdem mit Microsoft - und laden Patientendaten auf die Plattform.

Vorteil für die Patienten: Selbst bei einem Versicherungswechsel können sie die gespeicherten Daten mitnehmen. "Aus unserer Sicht ist das ein wachsender Markt, nicht nur in den USA", sagt Graham Harrop, Chef des Gesundheitsgeschäfts in Europa und Asien. "Irgendwann werden die Patienten bereit sein, für solche Dienste zu zahlen. Aber das braucht Zeit."

Bislang treiben vor allem die großen privaten Krankenversicherer in den USA den Einsatz elektronischer Patientenakten voran. Branchenriesen wie Aetna oder Wellpoint binden inzwischen die Vergütung von Ärzten an den Gebrauch elektronischer Rezepte, um diese im Markt zu etablieren.

Und Unitedhealth, mit einem Jahresumsatz von 75 Mrd. $ Marktführer, bietet seit Anfang Dezember sogar ein offenes Portal, wo nicht nur die eigenen Kunden elektronische Patientenakten anlegen können, sondern jeder US-Bürger. Ziel ist es, ein Gegengewicht zu populären Anbietern wie Microsoft oder Google zu schaffen.

"Der Druck der Versicherer und die angespannte Finanzsituation der Krankenhäuser, die sie zu Einsparungen zwingt, beschleunigen die in den letzten Jahren zögerliche Einführung elektronischer Patientenakten", sagt Glen Tullman, Vorstandschef von Allscripts. Der Marktführer für Arztsoftware verkauft auch Module für elektronische Patientenakten - und hofft nun, von den Investitionshilfen Obamas profitieren zu können.

Einheitliche Infrastruktur als Mammutaufgabe
Noch ist es ein weiter Weg. Gravierender noch als in Deutschland ist der Mangel an einer einheitlichen Infrastruktur und branchenweiten Standards. Die Kosten für eine landesweite Einführung entsprechender Infrastruktur wären gigantisch. Experten rechnen mit notwendigen Investitionen von 50 Mrd. $, um die 500.000 amerikanischen Ärzte zu vernetzen.

Vor allem Ärzte und Kliniken halten sich bislang zurück, weil ein Großteil der möglichen Einsparungen bei den Versicherern hängen bleibt. Laut einer Untersuchung des US-Kongresses vom Mai hatten 2006 erst zwölf Prozent der Ärzte und elf Prozent der Kliniken die Technik, um Diagnoseergebnisse, Labordaten oder Rezepte online zu verarbeiten.

Es ist eine Mammutaufgabe für die künftige US-Regierung, dies zu ändern. Doch der künftige Gesundheitsminister Tom Daschle weiß, worauf er sich einlässt: "Wir sind Jahre, wenn nicht Jahrzehnte hinter den Europäern zurück, wenn es darum geht, das Potenzial der IT im Gesundheitsmarkt zu nutzen", schrieb er in seinem Anfang des Jahres erschienenen Buch zur Reform des Gesundheitswesens, in dem er deutlich mehr Investitionen fordert. Das Buch gilt als programmatische Grundlage seiner künftigen Arbeit.

Das ökonomische Potenzial
Das ökonomische Potenzial des Vorhabens ist jedenfalls beträchtlich. "Elektronische Patientenakten können das Gesundheitssystem in den kommenden Jahren dramatisch verändern", heißt es in einer aktuellen Studie des Center for Information Leadership. Die Wissenschaftler untersuchten darin Kosten und Nutzen verschiedener Ansätze elektronischer Patientenakten.

Die größten Einsparungen versprechen danach Systeme, auf die alle Gesundheitsdienstleister wie Kliniken oder Ärzte zugreifen können. Noch gibt es solche total vernetzten Systeme in den USA nicht. Um 80 Prozent der US-Bevölkerung zu erreichen, müssten Milliarden investiert werden.

Unter dem Strich lägen die Einsparungen jedoch bei rund 19 Mrd. $ jährlich, heißt es in der Studie. Modelle, die direkt von Versicherern oder Dienstleistern angeboten werden, schneiden im Vergleich nicht so gut ab, erzielen aber immer noch Einsparungen.

Zu den Finanziers der Studie zählt neben Kaiser Permanente, Microsoft und Google auch das Walldorfer Unternehmen ICW. Mit der webbasierten Patientenakte Lifesensor betreiben die Deutschen eine der wenigen etablierten Lösungen. Seit 2007 läuft etwa ein Forschungsprojekt mit der Barmer Krankenkasse.

Und seit Mitte 2008 kooperiert ICW in einem Modellprojekt mit einer US-Klinik in Rhode Island. "Wir wollen die Marke Lifesensor auch international einsetzen", sagt Vorstandschef Peter Reuschel. "Gerade der US-Markt spielt dabei eine besondere Rolle - und eröffnet durch die Reformen gute Perspektiven."

Nun wartet die Branche auf Impulse aus dem Weißen Haus - und vom neuen Gesundheitsminister. "Wir haben das teuerste Gesundheitssystem der Welt", sagte der bei seiner Vorstellung im Scheinwerferlicht von Chicago. "Aber wir sind nicht das gesündeste Land der Welt." Vor ihm liege die größte innenpolitische Aufgabe Amerikas.



FTD.de, 10:00 Uhr
© 2009 Financial Times Deutschland, © Illustration: AP, FTD.de