The Inquirer-Home

Intel countersues Transmeta citing "doctrine of unclean hands"

Sleet turns into blizzard
Thu Jan 11 2007, 10:00
NOW HEAR YE, hear ye.

In the case of Transmeta versus Intel, being heard in Judge Sleet's court in Delaware, a blizzard of claims and counterclaims is emerging.

Two days ago, Intel produced a document alleging that it didn't nick Transmeta's patents, and denies the little firm's claims that a patent called Superscalar RISC instruction scheduling was wrongly issued.

It has found 11 defences against Transmeta's allegations but might find some more if necessary, Intel's lawyers told Judge Sleet. The 11 are as follows:

1 Non infringement
2 Invalidity
3 Obviousness type double patenting
4 Prosecution history estoppel
5 The doctrine of laches
6 License (sic)
7 Equitable estoppel
8 Ownership
9 Marking
10 Inequitable conduct and infectious unenforceability
11 The doctrine of unclean hands

And so, Chipzilla counterclaims that Transmeta has breached its patent 5,745,375; 5,617,554; 5,802,605; 5,819,101; 5,881,275; 6,385,634; 6,418,529 and then there's more which you can read for yourself by seeing the PDF, here. µ


Share this:

blog comments powered by Disqus
Subscribe to INQ newsletters

Sign up for INQbot – a weekly roundup of the best from the INQ

INQ Poll

Heartbleed bug discovered in OpenSSL

Have you reacted to Heartbleed?