3 ms·
I have found that at least one of the patents contested (U.S. Patent No. 6,879,268, formerly filed as 10/054,610) was indeed properly declared by Nokia back in
by zinekeller 6y ago
I have found that at least one of the patents contested (U.S. Patent No. 6,879,268, formerly filed as 10/054,610) was indeed properly declared by Nokia back in 2002 [1].
1: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/04/07/T040700053E0001PDFE.pdf https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/04/07/T040700053E0001P...
Edit: I have found other contested patents that were properly declared but I already said quits and let the courts decide on this.
Final edit: I gave up reviewing Nokia's declarations after finding matches in the filing. Apparently, the so-called contested patents (at least those that I have checked) were called differently when Nokia submitted the declaration (Lenovo's legal reviewed the patent numbers but did not looked if they matched the filing number). I have looked at some contested patents and it seems that Nokia did declare them properly as far back as 2002, so I genuinely don't know what Lenovo is trying to claim here. Accordingly, I let others complete the review here.
- xbar 6y agoSo, Lenovo, who was not party to the standard definition, is looking for a free ride on properly disclosed IP by claiming that the undisclosed IP makes the properly disclosed IP unenforceable. Suck it up and pay, Lenovo.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]