Judge affirms $1.17 billion verdict in Carnegie Mellon patent case
U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer on Monday affirmed a federal jury's $1.17 billion verdict in a Carnegie Mellon University patent case but noted that both sides in the lawsuit are filing motions that could affect the judgment.
The jury ruled on Dec. 26 that Marvell Technology Group Ltd. of Bermuda has produced computer chips since 2003 that infringe on two patents the university holds for noise-detection technology used in computer hard drives.
Fischer, in her order, denied pending motions by Marvell seeking a summary judgment that it didn't infringe or that the patents were invalid. She also noted that post-trial motions by both sides are due by Feb. 11, and that Marvell's deadline for appealing the verdict won't start running until she decides those motions.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Researchers: U.S. lacks proving ground for nuclear energy innovations
- Polamalu could be next in long line of Steelers greats given unceremonial exit
- Charges held for court in robbery of Elizabeth gas station with machete
- Over the falls — Cucumber Falls that is — go 3 Kayakers in OhioPyle
- Penguins’ Lovejoy embracing defensive pairing with Pouliot
- Experts: Clinton took dangerous path with email system
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Rossi: Kang would benefit from less attention
- Race toward bigger phones eases
- Wolf reverses Corbett, says deal between Highmark, UPMC doesn’t limit continuity of care to very ill
- Big banks’ levels of capital strong, Federal Reserve finds