Intel Sued for Patent Infringement

mfh writes "All Computers Inc. has filed suit against Intel for infringing on US Patent (5,506,981). Apparently Intel utilized patent-conflicting circuitry to determine the frequency of the input signal to the microprocessor, including Pentium processors. All Computers is asking for the tidy sum of $500 million USD."

Comments

Another Lawyer money maker

[stecoop]

Did anyone notice that the details are missing in the lawsuit? I read the patent and it I couldn't tell if they were seeking rights to the theory of relativity or dual processor technology. I suspect its speed step technology but who knows. Law cases are getting really thin now-a-days.

Re:Another Lawyer money maker

[julesh]

Looks to me like they're claiming rights to the circuit that's used to generate the internal processor clock signal from the FSB clock signal.

From they phrasing, they originally designed this circuit for use in "daughterboards" that let you put a fast CPU onto a slow motherboard, which was common back around the 486 days.

Overdrive

[GigsVT]

This looks like it covers something more like the old "DX2" overdrive chips and things, where you install a second chip to upgrade the first. Makes you wonder why they didn't try to sue years ago.

That's just from my preliminary reading though.

Coming on the heels of Integraph

[sacremon]

Integraph has just recently gotten Intel to pay them a large sum of money for patent infringment on, you guessed it, the pentium processor. In their case it involved the technology with the memory. Integraph is now off to sue everyone who used the chips who were not covered under the Intel deal. They just got a settlement from Gateway, and are supposedly aiming at HP next.

I imagine that the success that Integraph has obtained, which was after a very long, drawn out battle that took years, has given this company the idea that they can indeed win a suit against Intel, and given the precedent of the Integraph case, far quicker than Integraph.

Legal Section on /.

[jobsagoodun]

Its called Groklaw!

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to ruin the funny, but it can - this is a circuit that they claim to have patented, not a piece of software. Europeans have been able to patent circuit designs for a long long time.

Re:In Related News......

[shadowcabbit]

In addition to whatever else my sibling posters might say, Thomas Edison founded GE. You have a valid point, but next time please check your facts.

Violation of some claims is sufficient...

[blorg]

...that's why patents start with the most general claims and work down to the specifics. In this case, the general claim for the system is made in (1):

1. In combination, a computer system board having a socket for a first microprocessor and a clock for generating a first clock signal intended for the operation of said first microprocessor; an accelerator board connected to said socket to replace said first microprocessor;

said accelerator board having an upgrade microprocessor thereon for operation under the control of a second clock signal having a frequency greater than that of said first clock signal;

means responsive to said first clock signal for generating a sub-harmonic signal at a frequency that is a common denominator of the frequency of said first clock signal and said second clock signal with a known phase relationship between said sub-harmonic signal and said first clock signal; and

phase lock loop oscillator means responsive to said sub-harmonic signal for generating said second clock signal in known phase relationship to said first clock signal.

4Mhz is mentioned further down as a more specific implemention of this general claim [in (4)].

Re:Violation of some claims is sufficient...

[IPGrover]

Actually, you CAN patent a mere idea. Patents require a "reduction to practice." That reduction to practice can be either actual (where you actually make something) or constructive (where all you do is explain how it's done, usually in the patent itself), so you don't actually have to make something to get a patent. More interestingly with regard to the discussion above, I'd like to point out that the 4Mhz limitation is found in dependant claim 4, which depends from claim 1 (that's why it says "A combination as defined in claim 1..."). When doing an infringement analysis, you look first at the independent claims (here, claim 1), which "stand by themselves" so to speak and you look to see if each and every element of the claim is present in the allegedly infringing device. If that is the case, claim 1 is infringed and that's the end of the story. The purpose of the dependent claims is to "protect" the independent claims from challenges to their validity. So if someone came along and could prove that everything in claim 1 had already been done, the patent holder can turn to the dependant claims, which hopefully include an additional novel feature, and try to assert those dependent claims and their additional features against an infringer. Of course the infringer would also have to infringe the dependant claims. One other aspect of the 4Mhz limitation is that it provides "claim differentiation" and arguably broadens the scope of claim 1. Basically, because the 4Mhz limitation is NOT in the independent claim, and it is found later in a dependent claim, it suggests that the independent claim covers 4Mhz as well as 33Mhz, or 66Mhz, or what have you. To make things even more clear, independant claim 1 includes "means plus function" language, which really makes figuring out what it means a PITA. The patent office doesn't allow you to just say "means... for generating" and get coverage on every single thing under the sun that could ever generate anything. What you have to do with a "means" clause is look to the detailed description portion of the patent and find the structure that performs the specified function, here "generating." The patent then covers the structure disclosed and substantial equivalents thereof... I won't get into what constitutes a substantial equivalent, as I've wasted enough time on this already.

Re:Bell Labs

[e1618978]

Bipolar Junction Transistor?

Re:One day nothing will be able to be done

[Mr. X]

Patents are issuable only to people. Those people can later assign the rights to a corporation.