Printer Friendly
The Free Library
19,573,952 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Affinity Announces Results of Markman Hearing.


COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Affinity Technology Group, Inc. (OTCBB OTCBB

See OTC Bulletin Board (OTCBB).
: AFFI) today announced the results of its Markman hearing A Markman hearing is a pre-trial hearing in the United States court system during which a judge hears testimony from both parties on the appropriate meanings of the relevant key words used in the claims of a patent, the infringement of which is alleged by the plaintiff.  related to its patent infringement patent infringement n. the manufacture and/or use of an invention or improvement for which someone else owns a patent issued by the government, without obtaining permission of the owner of the patent by contract, license or waiver.  lawsuits against Ameritrade, Federated Connected and treated as one. See federated database and federated directories.  Department Stores This is a list of department stores. In the case of department store groups the location of the flagship store is given. This list does not include large specialist stores, which sometimes resemble department stores.  and HSBC HSBC Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
HSBC Humane Society of Broward County (Florida)
HSBC Humane Society of Bay County (Bay County, Michigan) 
 (formerly Household International). The Markman hearing was held by the trial judge for purposes of interpreting the scope of the claims of the Company's patents.

The Court construed the meaning of numerous claim terms which bear on the scope of the patents. Almost all of the terms were construed in a manner the Company believes are favorable; however, the trial judge construed a few claim terms, most notably those related to the term "remote interface" as claimed in the Company's second loan processing patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,940,811 C1) and its financial account patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,105,007 C1), in a manner unacceptable to the Company. In these patents, the Court construed "remote interface" to mean computer equipment, including personal computer equipment, that is not owned by a consumer. The Court applied no such limitation in construing the term "remote interface" under the Company's first loan processing patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,870,721 C1). The Company is currently evaluating additional actions to obtain a favorable construction of the unfavorably construed terms.

Joe Boyle, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Affinity, stated, "The trial judge interpreted most terms under consideration in a manner acceptable to the Company, including confirmation that the communications network The transmission channels interconnecting all client and server stations as well as all supporting hardware and software.  embodied in the Company's patents included the Internet. However, the trial judge interpreted the term 'remote interface' as claimed in our second loan processing patent and our financial account patent to exclude personal computers 'owned by consumers.' This limitation was not applied to our first loan processing patent, and we believe that the interpretation applied to this patent should be applied to our other patents. We are evaluating our post-hearing alternatives to further pursue this matter, which may include an appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals."

About Affinity Technology Group, Inc.

Through its subsidiary, decisioning.com, Inc., Affinity Technology Group, Inc. owns a portfolio of patents that covers the automated processing and establishment of loans, financial accounts and credit accounts through an applicant-directed remote interface, such as a personal computer or terminal touch screen. Affinity's patent portfolio includes U.S. Patent No. 5,870,721C1, No. 5,940,811C1, and No. 6,105,007C1.

Forward-looking statements in this news release are made pursuant to the safe harbor Safe Harbor

1. A legal provision to reduce or eliminate liability as long as good faith is demonstrated.

2. A form of shark repellent implemented by a target company acquiring a business that is so poorly regulated that the target itself is less attractive.
 provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) implemented several significant substantive changes affecting certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation and awards fees and  of 1995. We cannot offer any assurances that Affinity will prevail on its claims of patent infringement against third parties or that such claims will result in monetary damages to Affinity. Investors are cautioned that our business is subject to several substantial risks and uncertainties, including the Company's very limited capital resources and the possibility that we may be unable to raise additional capital in amounts sufficient to permit us to continue operations; the risk that we may be unable to obtain favorable claims interpretations through post Markman hearing motions and/or appeals; the risk that we may lose all or part of the claims covered by our patents as a result of challenges to our patents; the risk that our patents may be subject to additional reexamination re·ex·am·ine also re-ex·am·ine  
tr.v. re·ex·am·ined, re·ex·am·in·ing, re·ex·am·ines
1. To examine again or anew; review.

2. Law To question (a witness) again after cross-examination.
 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or challenge by third parties; the results of ongoing litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute.

When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation.
, including patent litigation; and unanticipated costs and expenses affecting the Company's cash position. If the Company is not able to raise additional capital when needed, it may be forced to consider alternatives for winding down its business, which may include offering its patents for sale or filing for bankruptcy protection. These and other factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. These factors are discussed in greater detail in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is not responsible for updating the information contained in this press release beyond the publication date, or for changes made to this document by wire services or Internet Services.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Business Wire
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Business Wire
Date:Dec 6, 2006
Words:676
Previous Article:BRT Realty Trust Prices Public Offering.
Next Article:Connecticut Water's President and CEO to Present at NYSSA Water Conference.
Topics:



Related Articles
City Corporation Counsel.
Hard work pays off.
Glenn Markman. (Who's News: Management Personnel).
TARGUSinfo announces victory for licensed patent portfolio. (Happenings...).
On partonomy and taxonomy.
50,000 s/f lease reflects healthy Brooklyn market.
Brokers worried over U.N. furor.
Markman reels in fight deals for clients big and small.
Austrian Mission accomplished.
Marriage education in the workplace: both marriage and work are based on relationships, and improving workers' skills in nurturing personal...

Terms of use | Copyright © 2012 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles