RE: PATENT INFRINGEMENTS4 Jul 2018 21:59
Welsh,
I tend to agree on the Murata and AVX topic. The big guys know that they have to play according the rules. The small ones simly THINK they can get away with it and if not they go bankrupt.
I’m not a specialist in patents but I happen to have one on my name.
Proving infringment can work out very complex but what it makes easier is that cap-xx is having ip on a product and not on a service or software. The system around ip is from origin meant for products. A lot of long running lawsuits in the news are about services or software. So, thats already the first good news.
I read the very IP carefully and Per my understanding it is clearly written down in product components and their function and written by a specialist, this isnt written down in one afternoon. 2nd good news.
Sometimes there is prior art: did someone allready wrote about the idea ? a simple post before the ip was granted on the internet is already a risk. Im not sure if this is only for the initial granting of ip or also in a later stage once ip is granted.... will figure this out with our ip department on short notice.
The other party is granted other IP Which Is written carefully around the other IP. I know that TRIZ method has been used by some big companies very succesfull in the past. (If I remember right, it was Samsung).
Question: do we know if the other companies have ip themselves ?
Based on the fact that murata AND avx are paying a lot of royalties to use it. Im sure that some lawyers and ip writers looked to it to find a way around it.....3th good news.
Summarized, looks like a strong case in favor of cap-xx.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
