% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Tessera Technologies Inc. Message Board

  • investorpatent investorpatent Jul 18, 2008 9:59 AM Flag

    New ITC Documents

    Just uploaded:

    It's from Tessera before you start blaming me only uploading the respondents documents. :)

    It includes several interesting details about what is going on at the PTO & ITC, worth reading.

    In my (clearly biased) reading the only argument that TSRA left protecting the '419 patent is a matter of legal technicality (identifying the real party of interest), no word about terminology or anything actually related to the patent. This patent and the ITC case will be lost for sure, it's just a matter of time.

    If I was long I would use the temporary hike before option expiration to get out.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Given the sudden drop today in SPIL, I would say I made a killing. I'd rather be lucky than smart.

      I think your comment on prior art is one of the touch stones. However, it seems to me that "prior art" must be generally known, i.e. graffetti on a bathroom wall describing some invention can't be considered "prior art". In fact, you don't even need to be the first person to think about something; you just need to be the first person to file the patent application. I think if a person can demonstrate that the tought of the idea first and can prove it, they are only entitled to exploit the invention for their own purposes free of royality obligations. But how many propeller head inventors know how to promote and market a product? ZILCH!

    • I believe your assessment is accurate relative to parsing words and the flimsy case of the defendants. The issue as I see it is not as much the temporary upsetting of valid patents by creative word smiths as it is the ability of a defendant to tie up legal matters for YEARS through this inter partes reexam process. TSRA caught a break in the case with SPIL when the stay in the ITC action was overturned and allowed to proceed, IMO essentially suggesting there was sufficient precedent to assume the patents are valid. At some point common sense must prevail. I've done a great deal of reading on these PTO processes and from what I can deduce, most patents have specific claims rejected, which does not invalidate the entire patent, very few have all claims rejected. The prior art issue is one that I am not clear on, however it appears that unless TSRA intentionally suppressed or failed to report prior art, theres not much of an argument. But again, I'm not a lawyer.

      Go to wikipedia and search "Prior Art", "Reexamination", and other relevant terms and you can review the process description in layman terms.

      Nice to hear you made a quick score on SPIL, since there may not be any spike due to a legal victory for some time (if ever) due to the nature of the reexam process bogging down the litigation and being "non-final" in nature.

    • I took a look and it does validate my Clinton parallel. It seems everything is hinging on the meaning of the word "movable" or "flexible" in the context of thermal expansion or what "rigid" means. This is all about parsing words used to describe the invention's purpose. I think the courts have clearly understood what these words mean in the context of the patent. The key issue is whether it solves a problem in a unique way and that appears to be the case. If it didn't, nobody would adopt the technology. It obviously overcame a packaging problem and that is the key point.

      I think the defense is hanging on a slim reed trying to give a different understanding to some of the words in the patent while ignoring how those words attempt to describe the invention. In a way, it is like the classic US Supreme Court comment about pornography: "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it."

      I don't share your confidence in the position of the defense. There is a saying that "Hard cases make bad law." If technical "word smiths" can upset these patents, then no patent is immune from attack. It will just be a battle over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

      But I appreciate your digging up the stuff. FWIW, I dumped out of SPIL today at $8.18 after buying in yesterday at $7.54. If I am lucky, I will also qualify to get a 75 cent dividend since is supposedly went ex-date yesterday. Not a bad day at the office. Still hanging on to some TSRA

    • Here you go:

      I was thinking about to buy AMKR too but I don't think that the deicision/settlement will affect its share price a lot. Its market capital is quite high not like TSRA's.

    • The one where you reference the page numbers I should be looking at. I have an open mind.

      BTW, just for kicks, I picked up some SPIL today to play both sides of the fence. I'd do AMKR, but I never liked its balance sheet: too much debt. Besides, today was supposed to be the ex date for a 75 cent dividend on SPIL. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

    • Hi Roses,

      Glad to hear that you are still around. One of the most important aspects of replacing revenues is for TSRA to structure its business so that it does not have to replace revenues and it does that by continually improving its CSP portfolio. I don't have the technical knowledge to understand if TSRA is succesfully making those improvements, but I do know that TSRA is trying to do so.

      TSRA is a gamble at this time, but in my view it is better to gamble on TSRA when it is priced at $17 than when it is priced at $46.

      - Rummy

    • Amen, Brother! Astrology? I don't know, but I do know I can't help but instantaneously gloss over when trying to read stuff like "PATENT OWNER'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF "DECISION RETURNING PAPER NOT ENTITLED TO ENTRY RIGHT." For me it's become hard to even figure out who the defendant is as it TSRA seems is doing all the defending... All I know is this company's fate no longer lies in the hands of business decisions or prospects as much as it does in courts...Everytime I've come across a similar situation in my portfolio, it's been time at least for me to exit...So I've done the same as you but only have 5% of what I used to...My timing hasn't been as good as yours but have managed an average exit near 30...

      For what it's worth, I've come to the conclusion that what's probably more important to TSRA's future is what it does to replace its revenue stream from these patents. Stalling on all sides and the vaunted efficiency of the legal system almost guarantees that TSRA will continue to get its payments from its patents until expiration. With luck it will get some substantial windfalls from the likes of AMKR, but all these cash flows are not sustainable from their present sources beyond a few years. So what's important is the ability to convert OptiML and whatever else to future important revenue streams... I suppose that could be huge....... someday.... Meanwhile, thanks to all old-time contributors to this board...

    • I created that shared folder to make it easier to access PTO documents. PTO docs can't be linked directly not like ITC. The uploaded document is public, I downloaded it from PTO's PAIR.

      What document are you interested to see?

    • Do you have a link to that document? I'll take a look if you do. BTW, that latest link to some download site was interesting. If I am reading the cover letter correctly, the very first document appears to have been submitted asserting protection under the existing protective order. Note the wording at the bottom of the second to last page which I shall quote here:

      "The confidential document included in the marked and sealed envelope is:

      1. Third Party Requester's Petition and Opposition to Patent Owner's Renewed Petition to Vacate Filing Date for Failure to Include Identity of Real Party in Interest and accompanying exhibits"

      Ironically, that very petition is the first part of the document. Just read the caption.

      Comments? How did you come across that site anyway. It isn't a PTO site. Just seems to be a place where you can park documents for downloading like some sort of file sharing website.

    • In reply to techinvestor:

      In December 2007 I sold all of my TSRA holdings except for a token amount (the timing was pure luck, as I had no idea that the PTO would reexamine TSRA patents) and I only recently started to buy back in. I have continued to follow TSRA and have checked the Board regularly, but felt uncomfortable posting since TSRA price movements have been all about patent law (a subject that to me seems like astrology) and I felt that I had little of substance to add.

      But, I have read more of the ITC file than I should have and my conclusion is that the patents are valid, enforceable and it is likely that TSRA will either prevail in court or reach a favorable settlement with the various defendants.

      I view TSRA as a gamble now, but a good gamble with the odds in my favor. I will probaby not take as large a postion as I held before (I now have a bit over 25% of my previous position) and I am hoping that with some good fortune I will hold my position until TSRA is in the 30's.

      I hope that all is well with you and some of the other old timers on this Board.

      - Rummy

    • View More Messages
31.41-0.38(-1.20%)May 25 4:00 PMEDT