![]() |
||
*停權中*
加入日期: Dec 2006
文章: 2,931
|
Rambus又一項專利被取消!!
USPO幹得好! GJ!
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ne...r_rambus_patent Before smartphone patents took over the spotlight, everyone’s favorite patent troll was Rambus. The technology licensing firm has been using the so-called Barth patents for years to sue tech companies and extract licensing fees as a settlement. After invalidating two of the three Barth patents earlier this year, the U.S. Patent Office has now invalidated the third as well. It was the Barth patents that Rambus used to win lawsuits against Nvidia, HP, and more. The technologies described in these patents pertained mostly to memory chip design, and were considered to be Rambus’ most valuable IP. Rambus pulled in $312.4 million in revenue last year on the strength of its patent portfolio. That amount is likely to drop in 2012. Rambus can appeal the latest blow to its business, but a Patent Office examiner is unlikely to disagree with the appeals board that invalidated it. The company has other patents to throw around, but none can pull in the kind of fees the Barth patents did. Do you think it’s time for Rambus to ride off into the sunset? |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
*停權中*
加入日期: Dec 2006
文章: 2,931
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...E80Q24E20120127
U.S. government invalidates potent Rambus patent (Reuters) - The last of three patents that tech licensing company Rambus (RMBS.O) used to win infringement lawsuits against Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ.N) and others has been declared invalid, according to legal documents. The three patents - collectively known as the Barth patents - pertain to memory chips used in personal computers and are considered to be among Rambus' most valuable intellectual property. An appeals board at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office declared the patent invalid on January 24, according to a ruling posted on their website. The previous two were declared invalid in September. The invalidation is more bad news for Rambus, whose stock shed 60 percent of its value in the weeks after a November 16 court decision in which it lost a $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against Micron Technology Inc (MU.O) and Hynix Semiconductor Inc (000660.KS). The Barth patents had been used to accuse a long list of tech companies of infringement, earning Rambus millions of dollars in licensing fees through settlements. Rambus can appeal the latest decision from the PTO. "We're evaluating our options," said company spokeswoman Linda Ashmore. Rambus' share price fluctuates sharply on its successes and failures in patent litigation and licensing. The company announced Thursday that it had fourth-quarter revenue of $83.4 million and annual revenue of $312.4 million. Rambus has aggressively used the three Barth patents to pursue infringement claims against technology companies. It was met with success in July 2010 when the International Trade Commission, which hears patent litigation involving imported products, ruled that graphics chip maker Nvidia, Hewlett-Packard and other smaller companies had infringed the three Barth patents. Nvidia subsequently settled with Rambus on the issue. POTENT PATENT The patents in question were also among six that Rambus used in accusing a long list of companies of infringing in a new ITC complaint filed in early 2011. That complaint was filed against STMicroelectronics(STM.PA), MediaTek (2454.TW) and Broadcom, among others. Broadcom has since settled. It was unclear if Rambus appealed the invalidation of the first two Barth patents from September, and the company did not immediately respond to a telephone call seeking comment. Scott Daniels, a partner in the law firm Westerman, Hattori, Daniels and Adrian, LLP, said Rambus was unlikely to win an appeal on the third Barth patent, since it would be appealed back to the examiner, who would be highly unlikely to disagree with the higher-ranking appeals board. Once appeals are exhausted at the patent office, companies can dispute patent invalidations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. (Reporting By Diane Bartz; Editing by Gary Hill) |
||
![]() |
![]() |
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 加入日期: Mar 2003 您的住址: Vancouver, Canada
文章: 15,006
|
I thought USPO is US Postal Office...
I was like....huh...WTH ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
*停權中*
加入日期: Dec 2006
文章: 2,931
|
引用:
That would be USPS... US Postal Service |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Master Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 加入日期: Sep 2003
文章: 2,102
|
請問一下專利被取消
是指專利以清通過了然後被取消 還是專利沒通過?
__________________
[ExtremeTech]VGAMaster |
![]() |
![]() |
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 加入日期: Mar 2003 您的住址: Vancouver, Canada
文章: 15,006
|
引用:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
*停權中*
加入日期: Dec 2006
文章: 2,931
|
引用:
是指以前通過的專利被取消了. |
|
![]() |
![]() |