Yes, I believe so. Why? Because that’s what Samsung does. UPDATE Nov 4As some of you have noticed, “our” case is in Western District of TX, not Eastern…(I am too used of all Eastern cases, which is the more used venue.)Nevertheless, I have update the statistics including both districts, as they can be seen as […]
This is related to future episodes of the Redeye interview. (part 1 can be found here) To address global volumes related to Samsung, it is crucial to analyze the infringement, how and where it occurs. Furthermore, the potential involvement of Google must also be assessed as it may be a contributing factor. Specifically, what is […]
Until I post the next blog entry, you can watch part 1 of my interview with Jesper at Redeye. – Next post will deal with Samsung volumes and Googles potential involvement, a sneak peak into coming parts of the interview.
How do settlement talks happen? I would dare to say that settlement discussions are ongoing throughout any litigation process. Parties involved in litigation always have a channel open, either directly or through its outside counsels. And settlement is always a topic that is brought up. In addition, settlement talks are generally confidential, meaning the discussions […]
This is big! Yesterday, on August 20, (75 days after the appeals hearing) the Court of Appeals sent the case back to District Court for the Western District of Texas and its judge Alan Albright. Circuit Judges Lourie, Prost, and Stark concluded that the district court, under Judge Albright, erred in determining that the patent […]
The opinion is out! – Neonode WON (i.e Reversed and Remanded) This means now that the case is returned to District Court and the case can continue. Settlement could now be likely, especially from Samsung, since there is a smoking gun with their name on it…. ; the famous licence agreement! Apple however, will most […]
Yesterday (July 18), two decisions came out;IPR Appeal filed by Samsung – Affirming PTABs final written decision.IPR Appeal filed by Google – Affirming PTABs final written decision. This means that the Federal Circuit supports the validity of Neonode’s 879 patent claims as non-obvious This renders into two interesting observations; We all have to wait and […]
Shortly after the hearing, the three judges came out with a decision for 993. Three working days later! That’s quick.The decision was to Affirm the IPR boards decision, that the 993 patent is invalid. Hence, Neonode’s appeal failed. It is permissible to petition the Supreme Court, though they rarely hear patent cases, and only when […]
This Thursday the Appeal live hearing was conducted, covering all four cases:22-2134 Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [993 IPR]23-2304 Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [879 District Court]23-1464 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Neonode Smartphone LLC [879 IPR by Samsung]23-1638 Google LLC v. Neonode Smartphone LLC [879 IPR by Google]The […]
Review of Neonode’s (last) response (April 2024) Erroneous “Three Meanings” Conclusion: Neonode argues that Samsung failed to demonstrate that the claim term in question, specifically limitation 1[b], is indefinite. [three potential and conflicting meanings] Samsung insisted that it is unclear whether the “only one option” refers to “the ‘multi-step operation,’ a ‘function,’ or something else.” […]
Iwerback Patent Report (IPR) 