AmberWave sues Intel over US 6,946,371
US 6,946,371 issued on September 20, 2005 and AmberWave sued Intel over the '371 on September 20, 2005. Of the idea that highly-cited patents are involved in litigation, it should be self-evident that the '371 was not cited by any patents on Sept. 20. The same could be said of the infamous University of Rochester patent on COX-2 inhibitors.
Within the '371, there is a claim of priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/387,867 filed Jun. 10, 2002.
An earlier patent to AmberWave, US 6,831,292, claims priority to a different provisional, No. 60/324,325, filed Sep. 21, 2001.
The first claim of the '292 recites:
A semiconductor structure comprising:
a substrate; and
at least one strained layer disposed on the substrate, thereby defining an interface therebetween, the at least one strained layer having a distal zone away from the interface;
wherein the substrate, the interface, and the at least one strained layer are characterized at least in part by an impurity gradient having a value substantially equal to zero in the distal zone.
AmberWave Systems Corp., a developer of strained silicon technology, said Thursday (Sept. 29) that it filed a complaint against Intel Corp. in the federal district court in Marshall, Texas, on Sept. 20 alleging infringement of its recently issued U.S patent numbered 6,946,371. The company added that since then Intel has filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that it does not infringe the same patent in the federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware.
The lawsuits around the 371 patent follow earlier cases filed by the parties in Texas and Delaware that relate to Intel's alleged infringement of two other AmberWave patents: U.S Patent Nos. 6,831,292, and 6,881,632.
AmberWave (Salem, N.H.) said the lawsuits arose after negotiations with Intel on a license agreement failed. AmberWave claimed Intel (Santa Clara, Calif.) refused to agree reasonable commercial terms.
“Intel has made a decision to use AmberWave's patent-protected technology without a license,” claimed Richard Faubert, AmberWave chief executive officer, in a statement. “We have no choice but to protect against this unauthorized use,” Faubert added.
[from EE Times]
Within the '371, there is a claim of priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/387,867 filed Jun. 10, 2002.
An earlier patent to AmberWave, US 6,831,292, claims priority to a different provisional, No. 60/324,325, filed Sep. 21, 2001.
The first claim of the '292 recites:
A semiconductor structure comprising:
a substrate; and
at least one strained layer disposed on the substrate, thereby defining an interface therebetween, the at least one strained layer having a distal zone away from the interface;
wherein the substrate, the interface, and the at least one strained layer are characterized at least in part by an impurity gradient having a value substantially equal to zero in the distal zone.
AmberWave Systems Corp., a developer of strained silicon technology, said Thursday (Sept. 29) that it filed a complaint against Intel Corp. in the federal district court in Marshall, Texas, on Sept. 20 alleging infringement of its recently issued U.S patent numbered 6,946,371. The company added that since then Intel has filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that it does not infringe the same patent in the federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware.
The lawsuits around the 371 patent follow earlier cases filed by the parties in Texas and Delaware that relate to Intel's alleged infringement of two other AmberWave patents: U.S Patent Nos. 6,831,292, and 6,881,632.
AmberWave (Salem, N.H.) said the lawsuits arose after negotiations with Intel on a license agreement failed. AmberWave claimed Intel (Santa Clara, Calif.) refused to agree reasonable commercial terms.
“Intel has made a decision to use AmberWave's patent-protected technology without a license,” claimed Richard Faubert, AmberWave chief executive officer, in a statement. “We have no choice but to protect against this unauthorized use,” Faubert added.
[from EE Times]
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home