market cap only 2 milion...last price 0.23$ and 30 milion is near ...prism win one giury verdict noe appeal see this artcle....
Sprint Can't Escape $30M Patent Judgment, Fed. Circ. Told
By Brandon Lowrey
Law360, Los Angeles (May 13, 2016, 8:35 PM ET) -- Patent-holding company Prism Technology on Thursday urged the Federal Circuit to uphold a $30 million infringement judgment against Sprint over network authentication technology and force the wireless provider to pay ongoing royalties, saying Sprint can't raise new arguments or challenge a jury's findings of fact that are supported by evidence.
Prism aims to end a bid by Sprint Spectrum LP, which does business as Sprint PCS, for a new trial. It also is cross-appealing the district court's decision not to award Prism ongoing royalties for the life of the patent, saying the ruling was an abuse of discretion because the $30 million verdict only compensates the company for past infringement.
"The district court abused its discretion in denying Prism’s motion for supplemental damages through entry of judgment and ongoing royalties through the life of the patents, finding that the jury’s award compensated Prism for Sprint’s past, present and ongoing infringement," Prism said. "To the contrary, the trial record confirms that the jury awarded Prism $30 million in damages only for Sprint’s past infringement of Prism’s patents."
In March, Sprint told the appeals court — four months after its bid for a new trial was denied — that the district court wrongly allowed Prism Technologies LLC to argue a different claim construction to the jury than the one the court adopted.
The wireless carrier contended the jury’s finding that the wireless provider had infringed two patents held by Prism was inconsistent with evidence that showed none of its accused networks fit the definition of “Internet Protocol network," a key term in the patents' claims.
Sprint also said that the district court erred by allowing Prism to hide the deficiencies of its case by introducing a settlement agreement it reached with AT&T Inc., which was sued by Prism at the same time as Sprint on the same asserted patents and which settled in the midst of trial.
The wireless provider also argued to the Federal Circuit that the district court erred in allowing Prism to introduce a cost-savings theory of damages that is untethered to the patented features of the asserted claims, saying Prism’s theory in no way addresses the key patented features of the inventions.
Sprint urged the appeals court to reverse the judgment and vacate the award of damages, or, at the very least, to reverse and remand for a new trial.
The lawsuit was one of five that Prism filed against cellphone providers — including AT&T, T-Mobile USA Inc. and Verizon Wireless — in April 2012, alleging the providers had tread on patented database and networking technology.
Following a trial in June, jurors deliberated less than four hours before finding Sprint had infringed two patents held by Prism and owed the holding company $30 million in damages.
Generally speaking, the patents pertain to the way a device obtains authorization and access to a wireless network for data services. In the case of Sprint, Prism alleged that it infringed with network systems that controlled access to its 4G LTE, 4G WiMAX and 3G networks, among others.
Sprint asked for a new trial in late July, arguing there had been a series of errors that had resulted in a “fundamental miscarriage of justice,” but U.S. District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied the bid, saying he couldn’t find any blatant errors that would warrant a new trial.
On Thursday, Prism said in its cross-appeal motion that Sprint's new-trial bid is deeply flawed.
"The problems with Sprint’s 'do-over' request are: (1) much of it is based on grounds that were not raised below and thus waived, (2) the jury was provided with substantial evidence to support its factual finding of infringement, which Sprint ignores, and (3) Sprint’s “legal” arguments are actually factual issues the jury determined, and Sprint’s attempt to cloak them in legalese does not support its appeal," Prism said.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Friday.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 8,127,345 and 8,387,155.
Prism is represented by Jonathan Caplan, Cristina Martinez, Paul Andre, Aaron M. Frankel and Lisa Kobialka of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, and in-house attorney Andre J. Bahou.
Sprint is represented by Carter G. Phillips, Ryan C. Morris, Jennifer J. Clark, Michael J. Bettinger and Irene Yang of Sidley Austin LLP.
The case is Prism Technologies LLC v. Sprint Spectrum LP, case number 16-1456, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sprint Can't Escape $30M Patent Judgment, Fed. Circ. Told
By Brandon Lowrey
Law360, Los Angeles (May 13, 2016, 8:35 PM ET) -- Patent-holding company Prism Technology on Thursday urged the Federal Circuit to uphold a $30 million infringement judgment against Sprint over network authentication technology and force the wireless provider to pay ongoing royalties, saying Sprint can't raise new arguments or challenge a jury's findings of fact that are supported by evidence.
Prism aims to end a bid by Sprint Spectrum LP, which does business as Sprint PCS, for a new trial. It also is cross-appealing the district court's decision not to award Prism ongoing royalties for the life of the patent, saying the ruling was an abuse of discretion because the $30 million verdict only compensates the company for past infringement.
"The district court abused its discretion in denying Prism’s motion for supplemental damages through entry of judgment and ongoing royalties through the life of the patents, finding that the jury’s award compensated Prism for Sprint’s past, present and ongoing infringement," Prism said. "To the contrary, the trial record confirms that the jury awarded Prism $30 million in damages only for Sprint’s past infringement of Prism’s patents."
In March, Sprint told the appeals court — four months after its bid for a new trial was denied — that the district court wrongly allowed Prism Technologies LLC to argue a different claim construction to the jury than the one the court adopted.
The wireless carrier contended the jury’s finding that the wireless provider had infringed two patents held by Prism was inconsistent with evidence that showed none of its accused networks fit the definition of “Internet Protocol network," a key term in the patents' claims.
Sprint also said that the district court erred by allowing Prism to hide the deficiencies of its case by introducing a settlement agreement it reached with AT&T Inc., which was sued by Prism at the same time as Sprint on the same asserted patents and which settled in the midst of trial.
The wireless provider also argued to the Federal Circuit that the district court erred in allowing Prism to introduce a cost-savings theory of damages that is untethered to the patented features of the asserted claims, saying Prism’s theory in no way addresses the key patented features of the inventions.
Sprint urged the appeals court to reverse the judgment and vacate the award of damages, or, at the very least, to reverse and remand for a new trial.
The lawsuit was one of five that Prism filed against cellphone providers — including AT&T, T-Mobile USA Inc. and Verizon Wireless — in April 2012, alleging the providers had tread on patented database and networking technology.
Following a trial in June, jurors deliberated less than four hours before finding Sprint had infringed two patents held by Prism and owed the holding company $30 million in damages.
Generally speaking, the patents pertain to the way a device obtains authorization and access to a wireless network for data services. In the case of Sprint, Prism alleged that it infringed with network systems that controlled access to its 4G LTE, 4G WiMAX and 3G networks, among others.
Sprint asked for a new trial in late July, arguing there had been a series of errors that had resulted in a “fundamental miscarriage of justice,” but U.S. District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied the bid, saying he couldn’t find any blatant errors that would warrant a new trial.
On Thursday, Prism said in its cross-appeal motion that Sprint's new-trial bid is deeply flawed.
"The problems with Sprint’s 'do-over' request are: (1) much of it is based on grounds that were not raised below and thus waived, (2) the jury was provided with substantial evidence to support its factual finding of infringement, which Sprint ignores, and (3) Sprint’s “legal” arguments are actually factual issues the jury determined, and Sprint’s attempt to cloak them in legalese does not support its appeal," Prism said.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Friday.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 8,127,345 and 8,387,155.
Prism is represented by Jonathan Caplan, Cristina Martinez, Paul Andre, Aaron M. Frankel and Lisa Kobialka of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, and in-house attorney Andre J. Bahou.
Sprint is represented by Carter G. Phillips, Ryan C. Morris, Jennifer J. Clark, Michael J. Bettinger and Irene Yang of Sidley Austin LLP.
The case is Prism Technologies LLC v. Sprint Spectrum LP, case number 16-1456, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
