If it takes 1 hour to write and review each page, at $1000 per billable hour, that document is worth $2M right there...That may be, but I heard a rumour of how much "expert witnesses" might get paid in these sort of cases and it didn't sound like you'd have to do too many weeks each year to get by.
NVIDIA Files Complaints Against Samsung and Qualcomm for Infringing Its GPU Patents
- Thread starter A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nvidia
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Similar to government bills trying to get passed into law, the larger the document the more it obfuscates what is contained. Making it more difficult to make a correct judgement based only on documents provided to the court. This leaves it more in the hands of the lawyers to present their client's side of things (sometimes creatively bending the truth) versus objective dissection of the actual facts. It also leaves it more in the hands of paid expert witnesses who interpret key sections of the overwhelming document in favor of that side as they're likely to be directed to interpret key sections of the document by the lawyers of of the side presenting the documents.
On the flip side, you want to cover all your bases with as many words as possible. You'd want to attempt to cover anything the opposing side might try to bring to light, no matter how minor. If you need to go to an appeal, you can then always point out a key section which perhaps didn't come up in the original court proceedings. Etc.
But the key, often times (especially if your claim is questionable), is to make it as dense and obtuse as possible in order to make it such that the document requires expert testimony that you provide to put things in as favorable a light as possible for you.
Regards,
SB
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
A skimming of the "2321 slide (1278 page) Response and Counter Claims" document" shows that it's size is directly related to the amount of paragraphs in the suit filed by Samsung.
It would be a mistake by Nvidia's lawyers not to respond to each claim made by Samsung on a point by point basis.
ITC finds Samsung did not infringe Nvidia patents and finds one patent as invalid: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...20151009?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews
You hope they had something else, like a real competitive road map, as part of their strategy.
But the truth is, no one vendor is going to be able to produce a demonstrably superior product for long. Nvidia has all this graphics IP but even if they produced products with a big performance advantage in this space, 3D performance isn't as huge a factor in mobile devices as say camera features and performance in the mobile space.
It was a Shadow Mapping patent according to Anandtech. I don't think the review/appeal of the decision nVidia is seeking on that one has much chance of success considering prior art was one of the factors in determining the patent invalid.
The ruling also struck at the validity of a vertex processing patent which Samsung and Qualcomm weren't found to be infringing.
http://anandtech.com/show/9713/samsungnvidia-case-update-us-itc-finds-samsung-gpus-noninfringing
The ruling also struck at the validity of a vertex processing patent which Samsung and Qualcomm weren't found to be infringing.
http://anandtech.com/show/9713/samsungnvidia-case-update-us-itc-finds-samsung-gpus-noninfringing
Ah, I misread the post I was quoting. Psycho asked which patent was ruled invalid. Since two (not one) patents were ruled invalid I erroneously thought the OP was talking about the odd man out - the one patent which wasn't ruled invalid.
That is some fine example of pro-active damage control from nvidia. Be sure to break the news first, so "everyone" (apart from that fine piece by Ryan) just use that as source, remember to tell that samsung infringed one (invalid) patent, but forget to tell that one of the other two were also invalid. And of course forget everything about giving up on the 4 other patents beforehand.
U.S. International Trade Commission Declines to Review NVIDIA Patent Suit
Slight update direct from Nvidia about their lawsuit -- http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/12/14/nvidia-itc/
Slight update direct from Nvidia about their lawsuit -- http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/12/14/nvidia-itc/
Silent_Buddha
Legend
If you play with fire, best be prepared to get burned.
Maybe if they had donated enough money to Obama's presidential campaign like Apple did, they could get him to overturn the ITC's rulings like he did for Apple.
Regards,
SB
Maybe if they had donated enough money to Obama's presidential campaign like Apple did, they could get him to overturn the ITC's rulings like he did for Apple.
Regards,
SB
I must be missing something but the 3 patents NVIDIA is using from Samsung do not seem to be in the original counter claim from Samsung.
The three patents the judge David P. Shaw mentioned are: Patent Numbers 6,147,385; 6,173,349; and 7,804,734 (if some computer sites are correct).
Looking back Nov 2014, Samsung countered with: Samsung's patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 5,860,158; 6,282,938; 6,287,902; 6,819,602; 8,252,675; 6,804,724; 7,073,054; and 5,777,854.
http://www.law360.com/articles/595098/samsung-hits-nvidia-velocity-with-patent-false-ad-suit
http://www.slideshare.net/NVIDIA/samsung-v-nvidia
So what happened and how did Samsung end up being able to switch?
I read somewhere so not sure if true that the three patents NVIDIA are infringing relate more to their tablet/shield devices rather than their GPUs, interesting if true but have my doubt until more articles are released analysing how those patents were used by NVIDIA.
Cheers
The three patents the judge David P. Shaw mentioned are: Patent Numbers 6,147,385; 6,173,349; and 7,804,734 (if some computer sites are correct).
Looking back Nov 2014, Samsung countered with: Samsung's patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 5,860,158; 6,282,938; 6,287,902; 6,819,602; 8,252,675; 6,804,724; 7,073,054; and 5,777,854.
http://www.law360.com/articles/595098/samsung-hits-nvidia-velocity-with-patent-false-ad-suit
http://www.slideshare.net/NVIDIA/samsung-v-nvidia
So what happened and how did Samsung end up being able to switch?
I read somewhere so not sure if true that the three patents NVIDIA are infringing relate more to their tablet/shield devices rather than their GPUs, interesting if true but have my doubt until more articles are released analysing how those patents were used by NVIDIA.
Cheers
Lol, reading this, i was think the same, look like Nvidia is not as popular than Apple in US .
