PDA

View Full Version : Interesting tidbits on the net.....


sarettah
10-26-2003, 12:29 AM
http://www.buscom.com/letters/nbcnpromo/nbcn/nbcn.html

Nanogen, CombiMatrix Settle Suit
Nanogen, Inc. (10398 Pacific Center Court, San Diego, CA 92121; Tel: 619/546-7700, Fax: 619/546-7718; Website: www.Nanogen.com) has settled its legal dispute with Donald Montgomery and CombiMatrix Corp., a subsidiary of Acacia Research (55 S. Lake Ave., No. 650, Pasadena, CA 91101-2676; Tel: 626/396-8300; Website: www.acaciaresearch.com). The out-of-court settlement appears to be a clear victory for Nanogen.

Under the agreement, Nanogen will receive cash payments totaling $1 million, 17.5% of the outstanding shares of CombiMatrix common stock, and royalty payments of 12.5% on sales of products developed by either CombiMatrix or its affiliates that incorporate the disputed technology. The settlement also provides for minimum annual royalty payments and that the equity interest in CombiMatrix will be non-dilutive under certain circumstances for a period of up to 3 yr.

"We are extremely pleased with the terms of the settlement agreement with CombiMatrix and Montgomery," comments Howard C. Birndorf, executive chairman and chairman of the board of Nanogen. "It is important to note that as part of this settlement, Nanogen did not out-license any technology fundamental to our core product line. The cash payment of $1 million will compensate us for the litigation costs incurred in protecting our rights to the disputed technology, while the equity and royalty payments ensure that Nanogen will participate in any benefit resulting from CombiMatrix's further development and commercialization of this technology."

In November 2000, Nanogen filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against CombiMatrix and Montgomery, a former employee of Nanogen, who is now employed by CombiMatrix. Nanogen says that Montgomery had misappropriated Nanogen technology after he left Nanogen by disclosing trade secrets to CombiMatrix and by filing patent applications on those trade secrets in his name. Nanogen's complaint sought a correction of inventorship on U.S. Patents 6,093,302, 6,280,595, and related patents or applications, assignment of rights in those patents or applications to Nanogen, an injunction preventing disclosure of trade secrets and damages for trade secret misappropriation.

sarettah
10-26-2003, 12:44 AM
Apparently their track record on patents is not great...lol...

They lost in court on their v-chip patent too....

even though they still list it as one of the patents they are licensing....

too funny...
************************************************** *****
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:9zQ2N...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:9zQ2Nk-v00gJ:www.acaciaresearch.com/pr/092702SummaryJudgment.pdf+v-chip+%2B+patent&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

FOR RELEASE Tel (949) 480-8300 September 27, 2002Fax (949) 480-8301

ACACIA RESEARCH SUBSIDIARY SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES RECEIVES SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING IN V-CHIP PATENT LITIGATION NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – (BUSINESS WIRE) –
September 27, 2002 –

Acacia Research Corporation (Nasdaq:ACRI) announced today that a Motion for Summary Judgment was granted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut finding that television manufacturers named in the Connecticut lawsuit do not infringe Soundview's V-Chip patent. The suit involves Soundview’s U.S. Patent No. 4,554,584, which relates to television video and audio blanking technology, commonly known as “V-chip” technology.

"Given this ruling, we will assess our options with respect to the ongoing aspects of the case, including the anti-trust charges and our options for appeal," according to Paul Ryan, Acacia's Chairman and CEO.

Soundview has filed a federal patent and anti-trust lawsuit against certain television manufacturers, the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association, and the Consumer Electronics Association which is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that television sets fitted with V-chips infringe Soundview’s patent.

Soundview also has another lawsuit pending regarding the V-Chip in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, against seventeen other television manufacturers. Soundview has granted non-exclusive licenses for its patented V-Chip technology to Philips Electronics, Hitachi, Samsung Electronics, Funai Electric, Sanyo Manufacturing, L.G. Electronics, Daewoo, Thomson Multimedia, Matsushita, Orion Electric, JVC and Loewe Optica Gmbh and settled its lawsuit with Pioneer Electronics.

Soundview’s V-chip technology uses a television’s receiver circuitry to decode content rating information sent as part of the broadcast signal. Soundview’s lawsuits allege that television manufacturers are utilizing Soundview’s patented technology.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act requires TV manufacturers to include technology that can screen programming based on content rating codes in new television sets with screens 13 inches or larger sold in the U.S. after July. 1, 1999. Approximately 25 million new televisions are sold each year in the United States.

Soundview Technologies is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030905/55468_1.html

Acacia to Appeal V-Chip Rulings
Friday September 5, 5:05 pm ET


NEWPORT BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 5, 2003--Acacia Research Corporation (Nasdaq:ACTG - News; Nasdaq:CBMX - News) announced today that its wholly owned subsidiary, Soundview Technologies, part of the Acacia Technologies Group, will appeal two Summary Judgment rulings granted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut with respect to its V-Chip patent. The rulings involve Soundview's U.S. Patent No. 4,554,584, which relates to television video and audio blanking technology, commonly known as "V-chip" technology.

Hell Puppy
10-26-2003, 01:32 AM
That's the thing.... Their business plan doesn't require that they win the patent litigation. It's pretty clear their goal is to collect as many licensing fees as they can before the courts make a ruling.



Last edited by Hell Puppy at Oct 26 2003, 01:29 AM

sarettah
10-26-2003, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Oct 26 2003, 12:40 AM
That's the thing.... Their business plan doesn't require that they win the patent litigation. It's pretty clear their goal is to collect as many licensing fees as they cant before the courts make a ruling.
exactamente......

Thats what the same legal team did with Gemstar...and they were very successful at it....