From today's posting from my website:
December 7th, a day that will live in infamy.. for rememberance of Perl Harbor, as well as for the Markman Order that was released yesterday. You can view it here. (link to the markman order is on my website)
For those that want the condensed version and run through my patent-pending patenese translator:
The court ruled back in July 12, 2004 Markman, the term "sequence encoder" that is used in Claims1 (the most important #),7,17,18,32,33 of the '7-2 patent to be indefinite.. meaning it can't be define and Acacia is making up what they want it to mean.
Also back in July 12, the term "identification encoder" in claims 1,5,6,17,19,27,31 were also ruled indefinite.
In the recent testimony, Mr Weiss, expert witness for Acacia, had his own testimony quoted in the Markman Order that was used against Acacia.
Replayed for your own amusement:
..with respect to whether the term "sequence encoder" had an ordinary and customary meaning to one skilled in system design in the television broadcasting industry, Mr Weiss testified:
Q: In 1991, did the term "sequence encoder" have an ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art?
A: No
(slam #1)
Q: In 1991, would the term "sequence encoder" have been a term of art to one of ordinary skill in the art?
A: No
(slam #2)
Q: Are you aware of any dictionary in 1991 where it would have defined the term "sequence encoder" ?
A: No
(slam #3)
Editorial note, the (slam) comments were added in by me, and were not part of the official transcript
From the conclusion, "The Court concludes that the claim term "identification encoder" is indefinite and renders independant claims 1,17 and 27 of the '702 patent invalid. The Court also reserves for later proceedsing whether the invalidty of the independent claims affect the validity of claims which depend from them."
Meaning that what Acacia started out dreaming 3 years ago that this was the "Perfect Patent" and unleashed their marketing storm, is being whittled away.
Acacia spinners will say that you only need 1 claim for an infringement case.. .that may be true from an academic sense, but I believe in practice, it's buh-bye when you get your made-up believed terms shot down by the court and by your own expert witness.
Especially when Claim #1 is being ripped apart, which is the foundation of all the other claims. And those other DMT related patents... all based on the first patent, so I expect there to be a domino effect.
Acacia is busier than ever with its new patents and going about the marketing in the same way... companies are getting leary of their efforts as they are seeing that this company is having a bad track record of not understanding patents, or just looking to use the presumption of validty to make a buck.
The court will hear more discussions on Feb 24, 2006.
Fight the Patent!
December 7th, a day that will live in infamy.. for rememberance of Perl Harbor, as well as for the Markman Order that was released yesterday. You can view it here. (link to the markman order is on my website)
For those that want the condensed version and run through my patent-pending patenese translator:
The court ruled back in July 12, 2004 Markman, the term "sequence encoder" that is used in Claims1 (the most important #),7,17,18,32,33 of the '7-2 patent to be indefinite.. meaning it can't be define and Acacia is making up what they want it to mean.
Also back in July 12, the term "identification encoder" in claims 1,5,6,17,19,27,31 were also ruled indefinite.
In the recent testimony, Mr Weiss, expert witness for Acacia, had his own testimony quoted in the Markman Order that was used against Acacia.
Replayed for your own amusement:
..with respect to whether the term "sequence encoder" had an ordinary and customary meaning to one skilled in system design in the television broadcasting industry, Mr Weiss testified:
Q: In 1991, did the term "sequence encoder" have an ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art?
A: No
(slam #1)
Q: In 1991, would the term "sequence encoder" have been a term of art to one of ordinary skill in the art?
A: No
(slam #2)
Q: Are you aware of any dictionary in 1991 where it would have defined the term "sequence encoder" ?
A: No
(slam #3)
Editorial note, the (slam) comments were added in by me, and were not part of the official transcript
From the conclusion, "The Court concludes that the claim term "identification encoder" is indefinite and renders independant claims 1,17 and 27 of the '702 patent invalid. The Court also reserves for later proceedsing whether the invalidty of the independent claims affect the validity of claims which depend from them."
Meaning that what Acacia started out dreaming 3 years ago that this was the "Perfect Patent" and unleashed their marketing storm, is being whittled away.
Acacia spinners will say that you only need 1 claim for an infringement case.. .that may be true from an academic sense, but I believe in practice, it's buh-bye when you get your made-up believed terms shot down by the court and by your own expert witness.
Especially when Claim #1 is being ripped apart, which is the foundation of all the other claims. And those other DMT related patents... all based on the first patent, so I expect there to be a domino effect.
Acacia is busier than ever with its new patents and going about the marketing in the same way... companies are getting leary of their efforts as they are seeing that this company is having a bad track record of not understanding patents, or just looking to use the presumption of validty to make a buck.
The court will hear more discussions on Feb 24, 2006.
Fight the Patent!
Comment