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

Tessera Technologies Inc. Message Board

  • investorpatent investorpatent Jun 10, 2008 10:04 AM Flag

    TSRA Patent 6,458,681 All Claims Rejected by PTO

    Just been published in PAIR, control number: 95/0010305.
    All of the 7 reexamined claims were rejected, the action is non-final, TSRA can appeal.

    I wonder if any TSRA patent will survive till next year, some final decisions should come this year.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I went to the site in the link and posted
      your control number

      it didn't work.

      i'll put it in the bs column.

    • In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a bit underwater on this at the moment, but am still hopeful that they will prevail in their legal disputes. In an ideal world, we all profit, but thats a tough order.

    • This is my understanding as well. This is why, IMO, the stay in the ITC case was overturned, even though several patent claims were rejected. These patents have stood up in patent court for years, and everything continues to point to their continued validation.

    • At least one of us will cash in a nice profit for sure :)

    • Look at the charts, this is a trading stock, always has been. Buy on the dips, sell on the spikes. If I lose everything on a legal defeat, I'm still ahead, I've been trading this for three years.

      Just to reinforce a simple fact, TSRA has never lost a legal battle. EVER. If you're betting on it now, you should hedge big.

    • Well, how much money this 'impressive' track record of TSRA made you?
      We can keep arguing about which claim is important which not but only shorts have made money on this stock so far. All the other details are insignificant.

    • Isn't this scenario possible?

      A licensee or alleged infringer challenges
      Patent P, hoping to invalidate claims x, y, and z.

      The PTO examines Patent P. It invalidates claims a, b and c, but leaves x, y and z intact.

      I'm not expert, but I was under the impression that a lot of these patent reexaminations played out along these lines; that is, the patent as submitted is overly broad and the PTO requires a scaling back, but this tweaking of the patent is often not enough to nullify current claims of infringement.

    • Maybe, but you just made a generic blanket statement. What is the important claim and why? If your reasoning is only that nobody would spend lawyer fees if it wasn't important, then you deserve to lose your money. I did my homework and made my argument, I was expecting a little more substance from you.

      People pay expensive experts and lawyers in losing causes all the time. Half the time, in fact. Ref:

      TSRA vs TXN
      TSRA vs MU
      TSRA vs Samsung
      TSRA vs IFX
      TSRA vs Sharp
      TSRA vs Micro Electronics

      +50 or so other licensees, et al

      I'm going to have to say my substantive case trumps yours by a long shot. Sorry.

    • Sorry, but this is not true. The reason of any reexamination is to invaildate the important claims, nobody would spend expensive expert/lawyer fees to challange a claim with no importance. You can assume that only those are the claims that matters that were part of the reexamination.

    • I reviewed this 'extremely important patent' along with the rejected claims. The rejected claims only address the underfill process of a single flip chip assembly using air or nitrogen under pressure. The rejected claims do not affect multi-chip or wafer level packaging nor do they affect compliant pads and fill materials used in the packaging process. Those are the very important patents. I'm not a lawyer, but I feel quite comfortable that should this become final, the rejection has little to no impact on the actual intent of the patent, which appears to be multi-chip and wafer-level packaging, none of which are rejected. If these rejections are so critical, perhaps you can provide your logic as to why and how you see it impacting the company.

    • View More Messages
37.45-0.50(-1.32%)3:38 PMEDT