Patented Intellectual Property Elemental to Virtually Every Microprocessor Design

Computers, servers, workstations, home theater systems, digital TVs, video games, DVD Recorders/Players, mobile handsets, automotive electronics and more...

Free
AGORACOM NEWS FLASH

Drill Program Encounters 2.45 g/t Pd+Pt+Au Over 28 m at the River Valley Platinum Group Metals PGM Project, Sudbury Mining District

  • A drill hole collared in main mineralized zone (Dana North) encountered 2.45 g/t Pd+Pt+Au over 28m, including 7.12 g/t over 3m and 4.06 g/t over 6m with a second zone of 3.30 g/t Pd+Pt+Au over 4m
  • Drilling continues to encounter PGM mineralization in the footwall of the River Valley PGM Deposit with assays of 1.56 g/t Pd+Pt+Au over 9m, 1.41 g/t over 8m, 1.12 g/t over 17 m and 1.64 m of 7m were obtained from drilling in the footwall
  • River Valley is the Largest Undeveloped Primary PGM resource in Canada, with 3.9Moz PdEq in Measured Plus Indicated including an additional 1.2Moz PdEq in Inferred.

New age large

Hub On AGORACOM / Read Release

Message: PACER: Special Masters Order Recommended Discovery Order No. 2.. 2-24-12

Despite TPL’s

argument to the contrary, plaintiff, Barco, is not attempting to require that the ICs be “a

mechanism for resolving the

merits of the party’s dispute.” Rather, Barco’s motion relies on

the language of

Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc. No. C-01-2079 VRW, 203 WL

21699799 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2003). The Court in

Network Caching stated that:

“at this juncture [the contentions phase], a party may comply with

Patent L.R. 3-1 by setting forth particular theories of infringement with

sufficient specificity to provide defendants with notice of infringement

beyond that which is provided by the mere language of the patents

themselves.”

From:http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/t3/Special%20Masters%20Order%20Recommended%20Discovery%20Order%20No.%202..%20%202%2024%2012.pdf

Above is the current order, giving us 20 days to amend. Notice TPL's argument that Barco is just trying to get us to prove infringement at the contention stage. The Special master also Judge Lyod said no, we just want to make sure you tie the chips to the patents, and not the patents covers all chips(sort of idea)....in my guesstimation.

So somewhere between proving infringement and just showing more expilicitly that the chips fall under the patent's we hold is all were asked to do. Not actually prove the infringement. The special master sided with TPL at one point and subpeona'd the documents showing it Seagate has. Then he was made aware by the Motion to strike( on the 21st?) of some case law, and has to give time to TPL to Amend these things.

This is a mini victory for TPL actually in the Special master see's it, but he has to follow case law. In other words or laymans terms(im not a lawyer or related in anyway shape or form) Barco found a loophole for them moment , we now have to rise to the occasion!

Best wishes

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply