Posted 1:16 am Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tech Patent Lawsuit Settled In Tyler Federal Court
By CASEY KNAUPP
Staff Writer
Staff Writer
Attorneys for high-tech corporations involved in a patent lawsuit regarding wireless Internet announced a settlement, ending a year's legal battle.
The settlement brings to an end a trial taking place in federal court in Tyler.
Four lawsuits were combined into one patent infringement trial and eight jurors heard five days of testimony, beginning April 13. The jurors were scheduled to return Monday to continue hearing evidence but attorneys announced to U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis that they had resolved their disputes, according to court documents.
The settlements remain sealed.
The case began in 2005, when research arm of the Australian government, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) alleged that the companies infringed its patent regarding technology to create indoor high-speed wireless Internet, used in virtually every laptop and game system. The cases were transferred to Tyler from California.
The case began in 2005, when research arm of the Australian government, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) alleged that the companies infringed its patent regarding technology to create indoor high-speed wireless Internet, used in virtually every laptop and game system. The cases were transferred to Tyler from California.
Accton Technology Corp., SMC Networks, Belkin Corp. and Belkin International, Inc., D-Link Systems, Inc., Netgear, Inc., Nintendo of America, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and 3Com Corp., announced Monday that they had reached a settlement with CSIRO.
ASUS Computer International, Buffalo Technology Inc. and Buffalo Inc., Dell Inc., Fujitsu Computer Systems Corp., Intel Corp., Hewlett-Packard Company, and Microsoft Corporation settled with CSIRO prior to the trial, according to court documents.
CSIRO claimed it was issued the patent "Wireless LAN" in 1996 and alleges that the defendants each infringed on the patent by manufacturing, using, selling, importing or offering for sale products using the technology.
Some defendants filed lawsuits against CSIRO asking for a declaratory judgment, claiming that the patent was invalid and unenforceable.
Prior to trial, the defendants stipulated that if the patent was valid, they did infringe it but their infringement was not willful. The jurors were to determine whether the patent was valid and whether the infringement was willful.
