The following press release from RSA may be of interest to the folks on this list. --Bob ----------------------------------- Subject: NEWS: Cylink loses in attempt to enjoin RSA licensing REDWOOD CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 8, 1996--In a ruling filed March 4, the Honorable Spencer Williams, U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, denied Cylink Corporation's motion seeking an injunction against RSA Data Security, Inc.'s licensing of its BSAFE/TIPEM toolkit software. Cylink contends that RSA's software infringes its Stanford patents and that licensing required an additional grant from Cylink, despite the fact that RSA already has a license. After hearing oral arguments on Feb. 29, Judge Williams denied Cylink's motion from the bench and later issued a written order explaining that "several factors weigh against finding that (Cylink) has shown a likelihood of success on the merits." In denying the motion the court found that "RSA has raised serious question (sic) regarding the validity of the first of the Stanford patents, the Diffie-Hellman patent." With respect to Cylink's other patent, the Hellman-Merkle patent, the court had this to say: "(I)t is questionable whether the patent warrants such broad coverage." Thus, Cylink has "failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits." RSA had initiated the lawsuit against CKC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cylink, because CKC was threatening RSA's customers in an effort to induce them to purchase sublicenses to the Stanford patents. RSA's action seeks a court determination that the patents are invalid, not infringed and/or RSA's licensing does not exceed its existing rights under the patents. Cylink/CKC responded by filing its motion for preliminary injunction which was denied by the court as described above. In a related matter, the arbitration panel which is handling the winding up and dissolution of Public Key Partners ("PKP"), the entity that formerly held the licensing rights to the MIT and Stanford patents, ruled that: "In addition to the claims discussed above and in our prior rulings, Cylink presented the claim, but did not prove, that RSA breached its fiduciary duty to PKP by providing patent licenses to third parties." The arbitration panel also found that PKP was obligated to reimburse RSA for the costs and attorney's fees incurred in other related litigation, including a patent lawsuit brought by Cylink to invalidate the MIT patent. "The court confirmed that RSA has existing rights to the Stanford patents, and although Cylink knew this, it has forced RSA to investigate. In that process, we have found a number of disturbing facts about the Stanford patents," said Jim Bidzos, president of RSA. He went on to add: "Cylink's losing its motion is likely only a surprise to Cylink who thinks they can achieve through the courts what they haven't been able to accomplish in the marketplace."