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

Augme Technologies, Inc. Message Board

  • obiyobikobi obiyobikobi Nov 10, 2012 2:58 PM Flag

    Yahoo MSJ Ruling

    The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Yahoo! on the basis that the accused products lack a “service response” ( 11-13) and an “embedded first code module” (Id. at 13-20), two claims in Augme’s patents.

    Now the question is what does this mean for Augme's Patents. It certainly does not invalidate them. I certainly has nothing to do with divided infringement.

    Either targeting or behavioral targeting is possible without infringing on these patents or the Judge missed something in his interpretation.

    Any thoughts?

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • wakemewhenthedaisiesbloom wakemewhenthedaisiesbloom Nov 10, 2012 7:39 PM Flag

      There is no getting around the patents. It seems more like the argument was based on semantics which would make the particular case with yahoo a technicality, and appeal can correct it. There is the doctrine of equivalents. Stay tuned, yahoo is definitely an infringer, and will likely need to still face the music. It was alluded to by Nathan Bradley, that yahoo escaped by a technicality, but subsequently talked themselves into admission of infringement with another patent containing slightly different language, but essentially the same technology. This is just round 1.

      The discussion about hiring another law firm (McKool-Smith), if followed on by the company could change the dynamic. I am sure GP is a very competent firm, but as many have commented recently, getting that MSJ granted to yahoo is outrageous, and may reveal there is less there than necessary. We just need the first one, and as been shown with VHC last week, the rest will fall like dominoes