Product category:
PCB Assembly Equipment and Tools
News Release from: Universal Instruments
Edited by the Electronicstalk Editorial
Team on 15 April 2005
Texas court dismisses placement patent
case
In a victory against abusive patent litigation, a Texas court has entered final judgement in favour of Universal Instruments, following a three-week jury trial in Houston.
In a victory against abusive patent litigation, a Texas court has entered final judgement in favour of Universal Instruments Corporation, a subsidiary of Dover Corporation, following a three-week jury trial in Houston All 17 claims of the asserted software patent were found invalid and not infringed
This article was originally published on Electronicstalk on 17 Jul 2002 at 8.00am (UK)
Related stories
Compact outline for speedy placement machine
New from Universal Instruments, the 4797S HSP high-speed placement machine is the company's newest solution for high-volume, turret-style chip shooting.
Support aids flexible manufacturing
Energy management specialist SatCon Technology has worked with Universal Instruments to complete the integration of a new automated assembly system for future generations of its products.
Judge Lee H Rosenthal of the US District Court for the Southern District announced the judgment on 25th March 2005.
The suit, filed in 2002, is one of an increasing number of patent cases that high-tech companies are facing brought by companies or individuals whose primary business model is licensing and litigation of patent assets - typically, with the assistance of contingency fee lawyers.
In the Universal case, the plaintiffs alleged that Universal's flagship GSM Platform for surface mount placement of components on printed circuit boards (that are used in computers, cellphones, and other electronic devices) infringed US Patent 5,283,943.
The plaintiffs in the case have waived their right to appeal in return for Universal's agreement not to seek costs or attorney fees.
"Universal Instruments made a decision three years ago to take a stand and defend against this growing problem", said Patrick J Gillard, Universal's Chief Financial Officer.
"The jury's verdict and the court's judgment are a resounding vindication of that decision".
Often, rather than incur the high costs of defending these patent cases in court, companies opt for the cost of a settlements short of trial, even when the merits appear to be very strongly in their favour.
But Universal, in consultation with its attorneys at Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, decided to battle plaintiffs' allegations in court and won decisively.
"We have come to recognise that the cost of litigation settlements that seek to avoid the risks of a jury trial of an otherwise meritorious defence are not a good long term solution to this problem", said Gillard.
"Although it is costly in the short term to litigate one of these complex cases in front of a jury we felt it was time to take a stand, and we did".
Gillard also noted the support it received from competitors and customers in the electronics industry, especially Assembleon, a wholly owned subsidiary of Philips.
The industry provided witnesses and evidence that supported Universal's defence that the '943 patent claims were invalid.
• Universal Instruments: contact details and other news
• Email this article to a colleague
• Register for the free Electronicstalk email newsletter
• Electronicstalk Home Page
Search the Pro-Talk network of sites
