Patent Stock Plays

[H.E. Pennypacker]

STEV - Stevia Corp. Files Key Cannabidiol (CBD) Provisional Patent Application With USPTO



Stevia Corp. Files Key Provisional Patent Application With the United States Patent and Trademark Office for Cannabidiol (CBD) and Acetaminophen Formulation to Treat Pain
Marketwired
Stevia Corp. 11 hours ago


INDIANAPOLIS, IN--(Marketwired - Jan 15, 2015) - Stevia Corp. (OTCQB: STEV)

Acetaminophen is one of the top selling generic drugs worldwide
Cannabidiol gained national attention during the past 24 months
Company's application includes over 10 different claims

Stevia Corp. (OTCQB: STEV) ("Stevia Corp" or the "Company"), an international farm management company and healthcare company focused on the commercial development of products that support a healthy lifestyle, including stevia and hemp and their compounds, is pleased to announce the filing of an important provisional patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the treatment of pain using acetaminophen and Cannabidiol (CBD). A provisional patent application is a legal document which establishes an early priority date for the benefit of claiming "first to file" status against other companies or individuals that may want to file for a patent with similar claims after the filing date of our provisional application.

Acetaminophen is a pain reliever with a long history of effective use and when consumed as prescribed, it is a well-tolerated and safe medication. Acetaminophen belongs to a class of drugs known as non-opioid analgesics. It is found in many cold medications and in popular products such as Tylenol® (recognized as a registered trademark of Johnson and Johnson) and has been one of the largest selling OTC (over-the-counter) drugs in the world generating billions of revenue each year.

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a molecule which is present in most varieties of the cannabis sativa and cannabis indica plants. Unlike some of the other molecules found in varieties of the cannabis plant, it is non-psychoactive and it is not believed to have any addictive properties. It is also extremely well tolerated at high doses with little or no side effects. Cannabidiol catapulted into a national story after being an important part of the 2013 CNN documentary "Weed" (commonly referred to as the Charlotte's Web Story). The documentary highlighted the story of a little girl, Charlotte Figi, who was suffering from Dravet syndrome, a condition that produces daily epileptic seizures in children. Many people now credit the Charlotte's web story for creating the sweeping changes in medical marijuana laws throughout the United States.

George Blankenbaker, Stevia Corp. commented, "Over the past 12 months, we have been building an internal business plan which we believe will create significant value for our shareholders. It was important that we did not disclose details of these plans until we had the proper protection."

Mr. Blankenbaker continued, "We understand that communication is critical to maintain shareholder support and will continue to update shareholders when important material events occur. The Company must carefully manage disclosure of future plans and do so in a time frame and manner that is informative to shareholders without damaging the Company's competitive position. We believe the application that we have filed with the USPTO allows the Company to pursue a strategic and broad business strategy to legally market and sell a product that can be sold as an OTC healthcare product. Alternatively, we are exploring the possibility of partnering with a large pharmaceutical company that has extensive experience in either the pain care market or experience with acetaminophen."

Mr. Blankenbaker concluded, "At the advice of our intellectual property attorney, we are not going to announce details about the claims within our provisional patent application. We will simply add that the claims are well thought out and we believe future planned developments will put us in an enviable position among all companies in the acetaminophen and cannabidiol markets. We welcome our shareholders and prospective investors to research the size of the acetaminophen market and to also research the worldwide interest being generated for cannabidiol."

A provisional patent application is not required to have a formal patent claim or an oath or declaration. However, an applicant who files a provisional application must file a non-provisional application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office within 12 months of the filing of the provisional patent application in order to benefit from the priority date. Most importantly, the provisional application allows the owner to market products that are believed to be covered by the patent application with "patent pending" status. Stevia Corp filed its application pursuant to other country's patent statutes, which will allow Stevia Corp to claim the priority date in many other countries besides the United States upon the filing of a non-provisional patent application.

The Company filed its patent application with the aid of an intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents.

About Stevia Corp. (OTCQB: STEV)
Stevia Corp is a farm management company and healthcare company focused on developing highly nutritional, high value products through proprietary plant breeding, excellent agricultural methodologies and innovative post-harvest techniques. Stevia Corp invests in R&D and IP acquisition and manages its own propagation, nursery and plantations as well as provides services to contract growers and other industry growers. Stevia Corp was founded on the principal of implementing socially responsible, sustainable, quality agribusiness solutions to maximize the long-term efficient production of nutritional crops. For additional information please visit: www.steviacorp.us.

About the Hemp Industry Sector
Hemp is a crop that can be grown for food and non-food purposes. As a result of its numerous nutritional benefits, many new food products containing hemp seed and its oil are finding their way into the marketplace, including protein mixes, pasta, tortilla chips, salad dressings, snack products and frozen desserts. Non-dairy hemp "milk" beverages, which provide significant amounts of omega 3 essential fatty acids (EFAs) and protein, are also available. Hemp oil is also used in nutraceuticals and health care products as well as industrial applications.

As an industrial fiber source, hemp is undergoing rapid growth as a natural fiber in everything from clothing and textiles to automotive composites. The fiber is also gaining popularity as a building material such as insulation.

The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) estimated that the 2013 retail sales value of hemp food and body care products in the United States was $184 million. When clothing, paper, auto parts, building materials and various other products are included, the HIA estimates that the total retail value of hemp products sold in the US in 2013 to be at least $581 million and included more than 50,000 products.

Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This news release contains "forward-looking statements" as that term is defined in Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Statements in this press release, which are not purely historical, are forward-looking statements and include any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Such forward-looking statements include, among other things, development of a product containing both acetaminophen and cannabidiol, potential joint venture for future product development, potential of CBD for treating diseases, annual retail value of hemp products sold in the U.S., growth of industrial hemp product industry, product development and business strategy. Actual results could differ from those projected in any forward-looking statements due to numerous factors. Such factors include, among others, the inherent uncertainties associated with new projects and development stage companies. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release, and we assume no obligation to update the forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Although we believe that any beliefs, plans, expectations and intentions contained in this press release are reasonable, there can be no assurance that any such beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions will prove to be accurate. Investors should consult all of the information set forth herein and should also refer to the risk factors disclosure outlined in our annual report on Form 10-K for the most recent fiscal year, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other periodic reports filed from time-to-time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Contact:

Stevia Corp. Investor Relations
Email: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Web: www.steviacorp.com

[TheFinalCD]

ENBANC DENIED http://seekingalpha.com/article/2757935-update-vringo-post-en-banc?uide=5085931

[goodboy2]

REVO... Ready, Willing and Able. Launch Pad Loaded, and exposure of its business plan is forthwith.

Extremely low Float remaining and slipping away.

Buy-Back Announced.

Courtroom Drama Initiated to claim Infringement Royalties.

Patent Development Rights Partners Locked and Loaded.

Get em while you can !

[Patentinvestor]

Excellent conference call with CEO Larsen of VHC. Patents are valid, Apple did infringe on the patents,and damages will be assessed by lower court.
Here is the replay: 888-203-1112, with ID of 3637119
Re-calculated damages in 3 months

[Patentinvestor]

Follow this formula on Patent stocks and you will make lots of money:

The formula is this - BUY on BAD NEWS, SELL ON GOOD NEWS, SELL ON BOUNCES FROM BAD NEWS, DO NOT BUY AND HOLD.

People who jump in and wait and wait and wait will lose.

People who play the news will win.

[Patentinvestor]

Lady Liberty Rescues Vringo; Google Royalty Tab To Exceed $1.8 Billion

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2236983-lady-liberty-rescues-vringo-google-royalty-tab-to-exceed-1_8-billion

[Patentinvestor]

ParkerVision Files Second Patent Infringement Suit Against Qualcomm

http://seekingalpha.com/pr/9775313-parkervision-files-second-patent-infringement-suit-against-qualcomm

[EZ2]

CEO already on record ----- ain't gonna happen! <split>




`
Of course, as the saying goes............. records are made to be broken!!

[Patentinvestor]

With 638 million shares outstanding MMRF is badly in need of a reverse split. The you'll have the greatest lawsuit in the world but they have way too many shares for the stock to perform.

Tough way to raise money as well. I would bite once the reverse split is completed but not before.

[Tulaz1]

What are your thoughts on MMRF?

As the health IT industry gets ready to descend upon Orlando for its largest annual conference, HIMSS14, a patent suit between Allscripts and MMR Global looks to be heating up, setting the stage for what might have a significant impact on the personal health record (PHR) market. Most recently, Allscripts’s second amended complaint to have the case against MMR Global dismissed was denied. While this may be a smaller part of a larger case that has a long way to go, the news is noteworthy because the court found Allscripts to bear possible indirect-infringement liability. Patent infringement cases, protecting intellectual property and the impact of patent trolls have all gained attention in the media but also with federal regulators. Given the relative youth of the health IT sector in comparison to other tech verticals it’s likely that we will see increased patent litigation as the industry continues to mature and grow.
http://ihealthtran.com/wordpress/2014/02/david-and-goliath-personal-health-record-patent-litigation-update-at-himss14/


SECOND JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
1
131329.1
This Second Joint Stipulation Extending the Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s
Complaint is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff MyMedicalRecords,
Inc. (“MMR”) and Defendant Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens”), by and through their
respective counsel, with reference to the following facts:
A. Whereas, on January 2, 2014, Plaintiff served its complaint on
Walgreens.
B. Whereas, the parties were continuing discussions regarding a
potential settlement or early resolution of this matter.
C. Whereas, the parties earlier agreed to extend Walgreens’ time to
respond to the complaint by fourteen (14) days from January 23, 2014 to February
6, 2014.
D. Whereas, the parties have satisfactorily concluded discussions
regarding the major deal points for a potential settlement of this matter.
E. Whereas, the parties now intend to move forward with the drafting of
a settlement agreement.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=96805934

[~S.B.A.~]

Whats your take on VHC. Stock continues to go undercover even though $400mil settlement from Apple. $300k in interest per day for Apple. Running royalty rate seems like it maybe ruled this FY

[Patentinvestor]

Parkervision shares surge 61% after jury verdict.


http://seekingalpha.com/article/1752612-parkervision-shares-surge-61-after-jury-verdict-are-these-patent-stocks-next-to-break-out?source=yahoo

[TheFinalCD]

Patriot's win against HTC comes after a protracted legal battle that was initiated in 2008. There are additional proceedings in U.S. District Court, currently stayed, alleging infringement of the '749, '890 and '336 patents against


Barnes & Noble Inc.
Garmin Ltd.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
LG Electronics
Nintendo Co. Ltd.
Novatel Wireless Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
ZTE Corporation.

Read more: http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=PR&Date=20131003&ID=16965843

PTSC(.19)

[TOUCAN]

BSGC check this huge patent

BSGC Like Ethan Hunt in “Mission Impossible,” you, too, can have your Facebook wall messages self-destruct in mere moments thanks to a new social privacy application from BigString Corp

"This Facebook message will self destruct in 5 seconds"

to read full article click here: http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-message-destruc-2012-02

BSGC patent, which includes a Universal, Recallable, Erasable, Secure & Timed Delivery for digital content, is going to be pretty valuable as people realize there is NO PRIVACY on the Net...until now.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/15/idUS130640+15-Dec-2009+MW20091215

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=2&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=BIGSTRING&OS=BIGSTRING&RS=BIGSTRING

[Patentinvestor]

Marathon Patent Group's Wholly Owned Subsidiary, Relay IP, Inc.,Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against 10 Defendants

Jun 18, 2013 08:30:53 (ET)


ALEXANDRIA, VA, Jun 18, 2013 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- Marathon Patent Group, Inc. ("Marathon"), an intellectual property services and patent licensing company, announced today that its subsidiary Relay IP Inc, ("Relay") has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against 10 named defendants.

Defendants include CBOE Holdings, Inc., The Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc., ActiveTick LLC, BATS Trading Inc., Lek Securities Corporation, Direct Edge ECN LLC and others.

Relay is asserting infringement related to U.S. Patent number 5,331,637, entitled Multicast Routing Using Core Based Trees. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have infringed, and continue to infringe, the claims of the patent in suit by using the accused IP Multicast systems and methods covered by the claims of the Relay patent.

About Marathon Patent Group Marathon Patent Group ("Marathon") is patent licensing company that serves a wide range of patent holders and technologies from Fortune 500 to independent inventors. Marathon provides its clients advice and services that enable them to realize financial and strategic return on their intellectual property rights. Marathon's IP Licensing Division acquires patent assets, partners with patent holders, and monetizes patent portfolios through actively managed patent licensing campaigns. Marathon is based in Alexandria, Virginia. www.marathonpg.com

Forward Looking Statements Certain statements in this press release constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Words such as "may," "might," "will," "should," "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "continue," "predict," "forecast," "project," "plan," "intend" or similar expressions, or statements regarding intent, belief, or current expectations, are forward-looking statements. While the Company believes these forward-looking statements are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on any such forward-looking statements, which are based on information available to us on the date of this release. These forward looking statements are based upon current estimates and assumptions and are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including without limitation those set forth in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), not limited to Risk Factors relating to its patent business contained therein. Thus, actual results could be materially different. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation to update or alter statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.


Marathon Patent Group
Investor Relations
678-570-6791

[TheFinalCD]

BCYP Patent NEWS out!!

Has Lawsuits pending against

Markman: hearing in its patent infringement cases against five defendants, including Groupon (NSDQ: GRPN), IZEA, (OTCQB: IZEA), Foursquare, MyLikes and Yelp (NSDQ: YELP). All of these cases are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Blue Calypso believes that Groupon, IZEA, Foursquare, MyLikes and Yelp are infringing two of its US patents, 7,664,516 and 8,155,679, which cover peer-to-peer advertising.


Blue Calypso Receives Fifth and Files Two New Patents


8-K http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=9358254

DALLAS, TX – (BUSINESS WIRE) – 6/18/13 – Blue Calypso, Inc. (OTCBB:BCYP - News ) is pleased to announce today that they have received their fifth U.S. Patent number 8,457,670 titled “ System and Method for Peer-To-Peer Advertising Between Mobile Communication Devices ” from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). This new patent further strengthens the Company ’ s original patent claim set as a “ Continuation In Part ” (CIP) of US patent 7,664,516 along with US patent numbers 8,155,679, 8,438,055 and 8,452,646. The Company also recently filed two new CIPs which expand their inventions related to mobile and geo-enabled offers/coupons and rich media testimonials and expects to file several more in the very near future.



“ Blue Calypso is committed to continual innovation and is challenging status quo in order to create next generation technologies that will change the way brands interact with their advocates. With the accelerated adoption of mobile devices and the changing landscape for digital branding we see tremendous opportunity ahead of us. ” said Andrew Levi, Blue Calypso ’ s Founder, Chief Technology Officer, and inventor of its patented platform.




Blue Calypso is excited to receive issuance on a fifth patent. “ We are continuously innovating against our current business model and looking ahead to future cutting edge customer solutions, ” says Bill Ogle, CEO.




About Blue Calypso, Inc.

Blue Calypso is an innovator in digital word-of-mouth marketing and advertising. With Blue Calypso ’ s patented platform, brands can harness the power of friend-to-friend referrals by empowering their advocates to share brand content with their unique social graph and rewarding sharing and engagement. Through robust, real-time analytics, brands can maximize their gain against social media initiatives, acquire high-value customers and increase sales.




Forward Looking Statements

Statements in this press release that are not statements of historical or current fact constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other unknown factors that could cause the actual results of the Company




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




to be materially different from historical results or from any future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. In addition to statements which explicitly describe such risks and uncertainties, readers are urged to consider statements labeled with the terms "believes," "belief," "expects," "intends," "anticipates," "will," or "plans" to be uncertain and forward-looking. The forward-looking statements contained herein are also subject generally to other risks and uncertainties that are described from time to time in the Company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




###




CONTACT INFORMATION




Investor Relations:

Blue Calypso, Inc.

David Polster, CFO

972-695-4776 , ext. 528




Merriman Capital, Inc.Capital Markets AdvisorDouglas Rogers, Managing Director415-248-5612

[1center]

MCVE..News..MacroSolve Launches Patent Access Services
for App Ventures

New, high margin revenue streams to augment profitability trend in MCVE.

TULSA, OK — (Marketwired) –6/10/13– MacroSolve, Inc. (OTCQB: MCVE) (“MacroSolve” or the “Company”), a leading provider of mobile technology intellectual property and app venture mentorship, announces it has expanded its service offerings for the benefit of small and medium sized mobile solutions companies.


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88826328

http://www.macrosolve.com/category/macrosolve-news/

http://www.macrosolve.com/category/general-blog/

OTC QB
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/MCVE/company-info

[Patentinvestor]

The Case For Intellectual Property Companies

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1429261-the-case-for-intellectual-property-companies?source=cnbc

[Patentinvestor]

MARA & ACTG... Here is a little history...

http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/05/patent-enforcement-companies-speak-at-sf-conference.html

May 28, 2010
Patent enforcement companies speak at SF conference
Lightbulb1Earlier this month, MDB Capital Group--an IP-focused investment bank that promises to help investors understand "the hidden value of intellectual property assets and future technological leadership"--held what it billed as its first annual "Bright Lights" intellectual property conference, bringing together IP-centric speakers from a variety of small and medium-size companies.

The Prior Art attended the opening panel, which included the heads of two of the largest, and most litigious, patent-holding companies—ErichSpangenberg and Paul Ryan, the CEO of Acacia Research Corp., the largest publicly traded patent-licensing company.

The panel also included representatives from consultancy ipCapital Group and RPX Corp., which buys litigated patents in order to strike deals between NPEs and operating companies, as well as IP guru Marshall Phelps. (Phelps is something of a legend for building IBM's legendary $2 billion patent-licensing operation; most recently, he helped Microsoft build up a patent-licensing operation before leaving the company last year.)

The most interesting part of the opening session came when Spangenberg and Ryan explained how their businesses work and and how they are changing.

THE SPANGENBERG STRATEGY
During the panelist introductions, Spangenberg gave a brief description of his businesses—an IP consultancy called IP Navigation Group, combined with a a very large network of patent-holding companies, several of which are named after Greek gods. According to patent defense company PatentFreedom, entities connected to Spangenberg have sued more than 500 companies for patent infringement since 2005.

Spangenberg recounted to the audience about how he first learned of the patent-assertion business. He was working at Jones Day at the time, he said, and one of the firm's clients had been hit with a patent suit by Ronald Katz's patent-holding company.

Spangenberg said that when he met Katz to discuss the lawsuit, he was immediately impressed by his adversary's office. "It was like walking into Versailles," Spangenberg said. Soon after that encounter Spangenberg left Jones Day to get into the patent-monetizing business himself. His first move: buying Firepond, a small Minnesota software company that had fallen on hard times. By the time Spangenberg showed up, all the company had in its possession, he said, were "some really cool chairs, some flat screen TVs, and patents." That didn't faze him at all. "We started an aggressive licensing program."

At one point during the seminar, the moderator asked Spangenberg a question about how he approaches companies to whom he wants to license his patents. "Do you initiate contact with them or just file a lawsuit?"

"File a lawsuit," said Spangenberg without hesitation, explaining why that, to him, is the best strategy in the post-MedImmune environment. "If you send a message, shortly thereafter you'll see a notice that you're a defendant in a declaratory judgment action, typically from Fish & Richardson or one of their other favored firms... Microsoft sues you based on that letter. Then they have the home field advantage."

He added: "I'm not criticizing them for doing it. I'm just saying, that's what's going to happen."

Acacia CEO Paul Ryan agreed that the Spangenberg's strategy is the only smart one a patent licensor can pursue these days. "If you're a small company, any offer of IP [to a large company] gives them an invitation to sue you."

Next, Spangenberg talked venue. Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley recently published a study that found that the most successful courtrooms for patent holders were in some unexpected places—namely, that while the Eastern District of Texas is considered the most plaintiff-friendly in the country when it comes to patent infringement cases, patent-holders actually fare better in several other districts, especially the Middle District of Florida.

But Spangenberg, who sues almost exclusively in East Texas, didn't make it sound as though Lemley's findings would send him running to other districts anytime soon. Patent-holder win rates might be great in the Middle District of Florida, but at the end of the day, he suggested, verdict size is what matters most. "Unfortunately you have a buch of retirees [on Florida juries], so your award is going to be around a couple hundred grand," he said. That's not nearly enough to cover the legal costs of a patent suit that can typically run to a few million dollars when a case goes to trial.

THE ACACIA ANSWER
Acacia Research Corp. CEO Paul Ryan moved through his talking points with the rested confidence of a man whose company had just seen its best quarter yet. Even though it still isn't profitable (a point he did not make to the audience), Wall Street is clearly feeling better about the company's long-term prospects. Acacia's stock price has returned to levels it hasn't seen since 2007, and, Ryan said, the company has now settled lawsuits with 770 defendants since its 2002 launch.

Among the more interesting nuggets Ryan offered up: First, the company's business model is shifting. "We started with [patents from] individual inventors," he said. "But what we've started to see in the last year is major multinational companies" talking to Acacia about monetizing their patents. Those companies have "much larger portfolios, with much deeper and higher quality patents."

"The response from large companies is changing. At first they didn't want to see us flourish," Ryan said. Now, some companies are willing to sign non-disclosure agreements that allow for negotiating long-term patent license rights with Acacia.

After seeing Acacia repeatedly as an opponent in court, some companies are learning that "a better approach is to be a customer" of Acacia, said Ryan. They're doing that by signing up for broad licenses that cover many portfolios of Acacia patents—and future ones that the holding company might acquire—rather than just settling individual
suits as they arise.

Acacia has always been a company to which patent-holders can "outsource" the work of licensing and litigation, in exchange for a cut of the revenue; but now it isn't just individual inventors with the odd patent or two that want to partner up with the California patent-holding company. Ryan said he's had discussions with major companies interested in potentially working with Acacia to assert their own patents (Ryan didn't provide names). "Large companies want to see a return on their R&D just like other companies do," he said.

[Patentinvestor]

Marathon Patent Group Subsidiary Enters Into Settlement & LicenseAgreement With Denon Electronics

Jun 6, 2013 09:11:55 (ET)


ALEXANDRIA, VA, Jun 06, 2013 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- Marathon Patent Group, Inc. ("Marathon"), an intellectual property services and patent licensing company, today announced that Denon Electronics (USA), LLC is licensed to certain CyberFone Systems, LLC.

CyberFone Systems, LLC is currently involved in patent litigation that is still pending against companies in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The patents cover claims that provide the right to practice specific transactional data processing, telecommunications, network and database inventions, including financial transactions.

"The continued success of this portfolio illustrates the quality of the CyberFone patents," stated Doug Croxall, Chief Executive Officer of Marathon Patent Group. "Serving the innovation community by partnering with or acquiring quality assets and licensing them on behalf of inventors continues to be a strategic initiative of Marathon."

Ongoing enforcement of the CyberFone patents continues against named defendants that include Mitsubishi, Toshiba, ZTE, Alcatel-Lucent and UPS.

The Shaked & Co Law Firm represented CyberFone Systems in the transaction.

About Marathon Patent Group

Marathon Patent Group ("Marathon") is an intellectual property services and patent licensing company that serves a wide range of patent holders and technologies from Fortune 500 to independent inventors. Marathon provides its clients advice and services that enable them to realize financial and strategic return on their intellectual property rights. Marathon serves clients through two complementary business units: IP Services, which devises strategies that allow our clients to maximize the value of their intellectual property assets, and IP Licensing, which acquires patent assets, partners with patent holders, and monetizes patent portfolios through actively managed patent licensing campaigns. Marathon is based in Alexandria, Virginia. www.marathonpg.com

About IPNav

IPNav is the world's leading full-service patent monetization firm, helping forward-thinking corporations, universities, organizations, and individuals profit from innovation. IPNav's integrated, end-to-end solution turns idle IP assets into revenue streams. Using its proprietary Patent Monetization Platform, IPNav unlocks the value trapped in our clients' IP portfolios -- with timetables and objectives set by the client. Based in Dallas, IPNav has offices in Dublin, Paris, Shanghai, and Tel Aviv. www.ipnav.com

[Chas1961]

PI

Price 5/31/2012 2.74
Price 5/31/2013 2.94

Think we are pretty safe

[Patentinvestor]

He is the CFO. I would ask for a call from Hardigan. Hes the real spokesperson. Jones is financial not the stock type,

[Chas1961]

Great Conversation. Very revealing (In a good way). I don't want to post as it may be taken as many different ways. Feel free to email if you want info. However, in regards to webcast he said he will take it forward. (LOL-take that for what its worth!)

[Chas1961]

Kim called and referred me to Peter Salkowski of Blue Shirt group. Looks like they will be handling investor related calls until merger. (I left message)They are 3 hours behind (San Fran)

[Chas1961]

I spoke with Phil Jones yesterday. I am waiting for return call due to the fact he is in meetings.

[Chas1961]

Thats probably who I spoke with but figured I was a little "small" to be a concern. I will verify today.

[Patentinvestor]

Nicole is a receptionist. Tell the finance guy or ask to have Hardigan call you. He talks to investors the best.

[Chas1961]

PI-I will call later today and make the suggestion. I will let you know after I call. Thanks

[Patentinvestor]

Chas, if your talking to DSS tell them they should live broadcast the June 20 special shareholders meeting so we can hear the voting results live.

[Chas1961]

Not sure of his name. Nicole wasn't in and they referred me over to him. I think after 20 minutes of very detailed finance talkk I forgot where I was. I am going to try and reach Nicole later. Everything made sense to me but as you said earlier on big board, I don't think we have any worries.

[Patentinvestor]

Chas, Who did you talk to at DSS? Was it Investor Relations? I would also say that who ever it was, he didnt seem too concerned about a R/S which is what I heard as well.

One thing I will say is that if $3.00 is the right number then DSS would of been de-listed now or when the stock was at $2.00.

Its not a new formula just because they are merging. They currently have 21.7 million shares outstanding with a $60 million market cap.

See http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DSS+Key+Statistics

[Patentinvestor]

Obama Plans to Take Action Against Patent-Holding Firms .


By JARED A. FAVOLE And BRENT KENDALL

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama on Tuesday will announce a set of executive actions aimed at reining in certain patent-holding firms, known as "patent trolls'' to their detractors, amid concerns that the firms are abusing the patent system and disrupting competition.

Mr. Obama's actions, which include measures he wants Congress to consider, are intended to target firms that have forced technology companies, financial institutions and others into costly litigation to protect their products. These patent-holding firms amass portfolios of patents more to pursue licensing fees than to build new products.

The firms say they are doing nothing wrong, just using patents that were legally granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They say they promote a fair market by protecting smaller inventors.

To help deter questionable lawsuits, the Obama administration will, among other things, direct the Patent and Trademark Office to start a rule-making process aimed at requiring patent holders to disclose the owner of a patent, according to senior Obama administration officials. Businesses sometimes are sued by shell companies and don't always know who actually owns the patent they're being accused of infringing, and whether the firm holds other relevant patents.

In addition, the president will ask Congress to pass legislation that would allow sanctions on litigants who file lawsuits deemed abusive by courts, officials said.

Those are among five executive actions and seven proposed legislative changes that Mr. Obama will announce, officials said.

Mr. Obama will direct the patent office to train examiners to scrutinize applications for overly broad patent claims.

He also is looking to rein in the growing use of the International Trade Commission to settle patent disputes. In recent years, patent-holding firms have increasingly filed infringement claims at the ITC, which has jurisdiction over certain unfair trade practices and can bar the importation of products that infringe patents. The ITC process usually moves more quickly than a patent-infringement case in federal court.

The Obama administration would like Congress to change certain ITC legal standards and ensure that the agency has flexibility in hiring its judges. The president will order a review of existing procedures at the ITC, officials said.

The president has taken a dim view of certain patent-holding firms. In February, he said some firms "don't actually produce anything themselves. They're just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else's idea to see if they can extort some money out of them."

The new actions build on other government efforts. The Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department are examining whether some patent-holders are disrupting competition in high-tech markets.

The administration sees the president's actions as a continuation of his efforts to revamp the patent system. In 2011, Mr. Obama signed a law overhauling the patent system for the first time in six decades.

[Chas1961]

Conversation:

I also stated that investors had been told that the minimum requirement was $2. He then pointed me to the NYSE MKT guidelines and stated that only applies if there is a market cap of greater than $50M. This is derived by the "available float" which is 19,200,000 multiplied by share price. The current price would have to be a minimum of $2.63 just to get that number if it applied. So at this point that is the best I can do. Hope it helps a bit. Thanks for all the info and posts and keep it up my friend. I am averaged in very well at $2.67 with a pretty good stake so as far as my spec play this is solid.

[Chas1961]

PI,
I am posting over here so as not to have 900 crazies come out of the woodwork. I spoke with DSS today and here was what I was told in regards to listing requirements. I was asking questions regarding financials of companies post merger and other items I will not bore you with. First I will address the $1M question. I was referred to page 3 of the prospectus:

It states that LTG will come to the merger with $7.25 Cash adjusted up to $1M for Virtual Agility payment $250K and other "professional fees and costs". (Mostly merger related) The amount of shares to be issued will be 6,250,000 divided by $3 for an aggregate of 2,083.334. They could have received up to 3,000,000 shares in the deal.

Listing Requirements: I was sent to several places as to listing amount ($3) in the prospectus. Based on not being profitable for the last three years here are the guidelines:

Regular Financial Guidelines. The American Stock Exchange requires pre-tax income of $750,000 for most recent fiscal year or two out of the most three recent fiscal years, a market value of public float of $3 million, an initial minimum bid price of $3 and stockholder's equity of $4 million. There are no operating history requirements under the regular financial guidelines.


Alternate Financial Guidelines. The American Stock Exchange also permits listing under its Alternate Financial Guidelines, provided a company has a market value of public float of $15 million, an initial minimum bid price of $3 and stockholder's equity of $4 million. The company must have a three-year operating history under this guideline, but there are no pre-tax income requirements.

We fall under the Alternate Financial Guidelines. (DSS has not been profitable in any of the last 3 years)

Now to his credit he did not seem worried about the $3 price. He pointed me to each "written" requirement. Obviously there is not a lot any of them can talk about due to pending merger.

Not sure if this is what was said to you but that was what I was told today when I called. Either way whether it is $2 or $3 I am not even worried here. My nature is to get very specific information when I talk to finance guys as I was one for a long time. LOL

This was from 2011 End of Year:
"While the Company did not have taxable income during 2011 and 2010, respectively," (p.23 SEC 10K filed March 2012)

[Chas1961]

Yep-My guess though is they announce vote approving merger 6/21 (Friday) or 6/24 Monday.

[Patentinvestor]

Merger vote 6/20 - consummated 7/1

[Chas1961]

The interesting part here is that IPNAV is a big owner of LTG. That bodes well for investment going forward despite the $$ they will make when merger is completed on 6/20.

[Chas1961]

PI, Any thoughts on ENZ. I stumbled on them recently regarding something else and had no idea they were involved in patent litigation. With 100M in sales and 30% institution ownership it might be a long termer.

[Patentinvestor]

Marathon Patent Group Acquires From Siemens Three U.S. and TenInternational Patents

May 30, 2013 08:30:56 (ET)


ALEXANDRIA, VA, May 30, 2013 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- Marathon Patent Group, Inc. ("Marathon"), an intellectual property services and patent licensing company, today announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, Bismarck IP, has acquired three U.S. and ten international patents and patent applications from Siemens, one of the world's leading electronics and electrical engineering companies, as part of a previous agreement.

The patents relate to performance enhancement features and enabling technology within switching communication terminal equipment, and in Private Branch Exchanges (PBXs) in a communication network. The inventions support connections between communication terminal equipment specific performance features that can be enabled and which relate to the setup of the communication connection, or adding functions to an existing call, such as call waiting or call forwarding.

The acquired portfolio includes U.S. Patents 5,734,832, "Method for Evaluating Performance-Feature-Related Messages in a Program-Controlled Communication Equipment"; 5,883,896, "Arrangement for Coupling Optional Auxiliary Devices to Terminal Equipment of Private Branch Exchanges; and 6,674,848, "Method for Displaying Performance Feature Names at a Communication Terminal Equipment."

Marathon has engaged IPNav, a strategic partner, to assist in identifying and monetizing the acquired patents. The joint effort will seek to license to those who market or sell technologies covered by the underlying rights of the acquired assets. Earlier this year, Marathon Patent Group announced it had entered into a strategic relationship with industry-leading patent monetization company IP Navigation Group.

"The Siemens portfolio provides Marathon with new assets to add to its recent series of strategic patent acquisitions," stated Doug Croxall, Marathon Patent Group's Chief Executive Officer. "This is a strategic portfolio for Marathon's subsidiary, Bismarck IP, and we look forward to working with IP Nav on exploring the different monetization opportunities with these IP assets."

The Shaked & Co Law Firm represented Marathon in the transaction.

About Marathon Patent Group

Marathon Patent Group ("Marathon") is an intellectual property services and patent licensing company that serves a wide range of patent holders and technologies from Fortune 500 to independent inventors. Marathon provides its clients advice and services that enable them to realize financial and strategic return on their intellectual property rights. Marathon serves clients through two complementary business units: IP Services, which devises strategies that allow our clients to maximize the value of their intellectual property assets, and IP Licensing, which acquires patent assets, partners with patent holders, and monetizes patent portfolios through actively managed patent licensing campaigns. Marathon is based in Alexandria, Virginia. www.marathonpg.com

About IPNav

IPNav is the world's leading full-service patent monetization firm, helping forward-thinking corporations, universities, organizations, and individuals profit from innovation. IPNav's integrated, end-to-end solution turns idle IP assets into revenue streams. Using its proprietary Patent Monetization Platform, IPNav unlocks the value trapped in our clients' IP portfolios -- with timetables and objectives set by the client. Based in Dallas, IPNav has offices in Dublin, Paris, Shanghai, and Tel Aviv. www.ipnav.com

About Shaked & Co.

Shaked & Co. Law Offices is a leading law firm specializing in the technology commercialization arena. The firm is involved in every aspect of its clients' technology development, commercialization, licensing and investment activities. The firm represents local and international entrepreneurs, start-ups, life sciences and high-tech companies, multi-nationals, venture capital funds, angel investors, corporate investors, inventors patent owners and licensors with respect to all of their corporate, commercial and transactional matters. The firm offers its clients integrated legal services, including corporate and commercial law, intellectual property and patent monetization and licensing, and employment law.

Forward Looking Statements

[Patentinvestor]

VRNG and DSS are affiliated with the private firm IP Nav. Both companies have had settlements now. VRNG has the Microsoft settlement and DSS has had announced settlements with Broadvision and Jive Software. That proves that any company that is being steered by IP Nav's patent analytics is a gem. IP Nav knows what they are doing and they are also involved with MARA. These facts should tell you that your investments in the IP play space should be following IP Nav.

I still say DSS will be the biggest of them all as they own the IP (Bascom Patents) for all social Media and they are going after FACEBOOK and Linkedin who built their companies without any regard to patents.

[Patentinvestor]

Thoughts On Vringo's Response In Support Of Its Motion For Ongoing Royalties
Fri, May 24, 11:37 | About: VRNG | Includes: GOOG

Alexander Maxwell
I am currently a senior in High School and have been investing since the sixth grade with my own money. I am very interested in the pharmaceutical sectors, but will buy just about any stock if I feel that the company is undervalued. I hope to provide some helpful insight, and to in turn learn a lot from the rest of the investment community.
The Vringo (VRNG) versus Google (GOOG) patent infringement case has been heating up. It has been an interesting few weeks with Google claiming to have a runaround implemented, and Vringo asking for enhanced royalties up to 7% of the 20.9% base of US Adwords revenue. Now is the hard part as investors, waiting for the final decision from the judge. There are some very important points that were brought up in the response filed by Vringo, which I would like to give my take on.

Issue 1: Google's workaround

Vringo's attorneys points out multiple times that the motion for ongoing royalties was not the proper time for Google to present the notion of a runaround, as Google has already been adjudged by a jury to have infringed upon (and continuing to infringe upon) the patents owned by Vringo. This snapshot from page 19 could have very easily been glanced over, but provides a very important insight as to how the process will play out:

"If Google's allegedly modified system is later determined to be

colorably different, the ongoing royalty rate would not apply to the revenues derived from that

system. See Soverain Software v. Newegg, 836 F. Supp. 2d at 484 ("If Newegg proves

successful in designing-around the shopping cart claims and hypertext statement claims, it will

be freed of the obligation to pay ongoing royalties.")."

Notice how in the Soverain Software v. Newegg case that the court reasoned: "If Newegg proves" that its system is different and does not infringe it will be freed of having to pay ongoing royalties. This applies very importantly to the case at hand, as it would clearly help to lead to the conclusion that similarly Google would bear the burden of proving that the workaround system does not infringe. This is contrary to Google's argument in its memorandum in opposition in which Google seems to assert that Vringo would bear the burden of proving that Google's new system still infringes. Google starts the portion of its motion, talking about how Vringo would have to prove that it is still infringing, with the heading: "II. I/P Engine fails to meet its burden of proving that Defendants' current system is no more than colorably different than the accused product." Google seems to believe that for some reason Vringo would have to prove that the system is still infringing.

Personally, I would lean towards Vringo's argument. First of all, Vringo would seem to have the case law on its side of the argument. And secondly, simple logic would point to the idea that a company which is now adjudged to have infringed would bear the burden of proving that it is no longer infringing. Otherwise Google could release an update every day claiming that it is no longer infringing, which would cause for even more trials and legal delays. The case law not being on Google's side, coupled with the logical fallacy inherent within Google's argument would seem to point that the judge will not agree with Google on that issue. Even more importantly is how Vringo constantly reminds the judge that the motion is not at all about a proposed work around from Google; but rather about ongoing royalties in the case, even calling Google's claimed workaround a "red herring". I also agree with the idea presented through Vringo's brief that if there really was a work-around, that Google would want a running royalty (as they would not have to pay after the infringing system is shut down and their new system is adjudged to be not infringing), rather than a lump sum. This would help to make me skeptical personally as to whether Google would win the argument that its new system does not infringe upon I/P Engine's patents.

Issue II:Google's claim that the royalty base used by the jury was not the 20.9% royalty base.

While this argument is actually a valid one by Google (if you do the math, the royalty rate assigned for Google in terms of past damages was incredibly low), the 20.9% royalty rate was the only rate presented to the jury at the trial. It is apparent that there would be no legal basis for the judge to say that the jury did not want the 20.9% royalty rate, as it was properly applied to all of the other Defendants in the case. Furthermore, Google seemingly rolled the dice when it did not counter with what it thought would be an appropriate royalty base. Google instead went with the lump sum argument, one which was rejected by the jury. In that light, Google decided to roll the dice and ultimately lost. Had Google argued at trial for a royalty base consistent with what the jury assigned to Google, this could be a very different discussion. Thus, Vringo has also addressed another steep concern of investors about what royalty base is going to be used.

Issue III: What the royalty percentage is going to be

This would seem to be a much harder issue to resolve. The absolute worst case scenario for Vringo would be that the judge simply comes out with 3.5% as the royalty percentage. This is definitely not too shabby of a scenario for Vringo as Vringo would still receive a substantial amount of money until the expiration date of its patents. However, Vringo makes the argument that the judge should consider that post-infringement, given that the changed bargaining positions of both companies that a reasonable royalty rate would have been 5%. This is given the hypothetical negotiations which would have taken place, which Vringo points out is substantially different now that Google has been adjudged to have infringed upon Google's patents. Also, as Vringo pointed out, Google would have to be negotiating with I/P Engine, not with Lycos, this is a very important distinction. If Google got its way that it would have been negotiating with Lycos, the court would have reasonably taken into account the fact that Lycos was not doing very well financially and was cutting off a large amount of its patent enforcement activities. Instead having to negotiate with I/P Engine, which is financially solid, and solely devoted to monetizing its I/P assets, the negotiations would have been a very different ballgame. Vringo then asks the court to apply the Reed test and enhance the royalty rate up to 7%, due to Google's continued willful infringement on Vringo's patents. The test comes out overwhelmingly in favor of Vringo, and helps to suggest that instead of 5% it is very possible for the judge to grant a 7% royalty to Vringo.

My take: Given the overwhelmingly positive Reed test coupled with the factors pointed to by I/P Engine about the new negotiations under a Georgia Pacific Analysis, the court will likely award Vringo at least five percent and possibly even 7% in ongoing royalties. It is becoming very clear for Vringo just how important the testimony of Dr. Becker was throughout the trial, and they are continuing to lean upon his analysis even after the trial.

An interesting tidbit is that Vringo frequently cites the case ActiveVideo v. Verizon. Now, this case is arguably the best case for determining what Judge Jackson is leaning towards in terms of enhancing Vringo's royalty rate, as Judge Jackson was the presiding judge in the case. This clearly shows that Judge Jackson is not afraid to enhance royalty rates, given the shifted position of the companies, as Google is now an adjudged infringer. The appeals court ultimately agreed with Judge Jackson's royalty determination.

Vringo has a bright road ahead of it, and has helped to make me more skeptical than ever about a possible work around by Google. I used to be leaning in the direction that there might be some merit to Google's argument of a workaround, however, with Google having to prove that their workaround would not infringe upon Vringo's patents, it seems as though the verdict for Vringo would be secure. So where do we go from here? The appeals should be interesting, if Vringo is able to get laches overruled by the Court of Appeals, the stock should run as that would add hundreds of millions of dollars more into the pot for Vringo. Let's not count Quinn Emmanuel out though, these guys do know what they are doing and I would expect a fierce argument on appeal. As to whether or not Google will ultimately win on appeal only time will tell, but for right now things do seem to be positive for I/P Engine and Vringo.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in VRNG over the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Add GOOG to portfolio
Share this Article

[Patentinvestor]

July Options Now Available For Document Security Systems (DSS)
BY DividendChannel.com | 05/20/13 - 04:19 PM EDT
Stock quotes in this article: DSS

inShare
Comment 0
Find out if (DSS) is in Cramer's Portfolio.
Investors in Document Security Systems Inc (DSS_) saw new options become available today, for the July expiration. At Stock Options Channel, our YieldBoost formula has looked up and down the DSS options chain for the new July contracts and identified the following put contract of particular interest.

The put contract at the $2.50 strike price has a current bid of 35 cents. If an investor was to sell-to-open that put contract, they are committing to purchase the stock at $2.50, but will also collect the premium, putting the cost basis of the shares at $2.15 (before broker commissions). To an investor already interested in purchasing shares of DSS, that could represent an attractive alternative to paying $2.75/share today.

Because the $2.50 strike represents an approximate 9% discount to the current trading price of the stock (in other words it is out-of-the-money by that percentage), there is also the possibility that the put contract would expire worthless. The current analytical data (including greeks and implied greeks) suggest the current odds of that happening are 67%. Stock Options Channel will track those odds over time to see how they change, publishing a chart of those numbers on our website under the contract detail page for this contract. Should the contract expire worthless, the premium would represent a 14.00% return on the cash commitment, or 83.77% annualized — at Stock Options Channel we call this the YieldBoost.

[Patentinvestor]

Why I Added To Document Security Systems Recently
Fri, May 17, 16:13 | About: DSS | Includes: FB, LNKD

Carl Cachia
On April 28, I presented an article about why Document Security Systems (DSS) is my favorite speculative play for 2013. I have been adding on all dips and DSS continues to set up nicely for higher prices. DSS has risen from $2.50 to the current price of $2.93 and I have used the recent consolidation to add to my position.

Recent Earnings

Earnings were reported on May 15, 2013 as can be seen here.

Some key points included:

Printing sales increased 34%, licensing and digital sales increased 23% and plastics sales increased 22%.
Printing sales were positively impacted by a strong quarter of security sales, especially secure coupons, licensing sales.
In addition the plastics group received a high volume order from a new customer, which also contributed to that division's sales increase and every indication is that this will be a recurring quarterly order for the plastic group.
Total gross profit for the first quarter of 2013 was 1.5 million, a 16% increase over the first quarter of 2012, resulting in a total gross profit margin of 38.6%.
A significant contributing factor to the approximately 600 basis points year-over-year increase in our gross profit margins was the improvement in the printing division's gross profit margins of 40.6%, up from 24.3% in the first quarter of 2012. One disappointing bit of news was the fact that the packaging division experienced a $726,000 decline of revenue from a large prime packaging customer. This very large customer was responsible for $846,000 increases in revenue for this division during the fourth quarter of 2012. In my mind the reason to invest in DSS is not because of its current business, though.
Looking at this chart shows how revenues have been ramping up yearly:

(click to enlarge)

Adapted from Nasdaq.com

Short interest

Short interest continues to rise, increasing the potential for a short squeeze. Here are the numbers over the last few months:



Adapted from Nasdaq.com

Update of the merger with Lexington Technology group (LTG)

The potential of DSS and LTG together is still the golden carrot for the future of DSS from my point of view. This merger will enable DSS to substantially increase its intellectual property. Significant talent from both teams will be joined and I believe that revenue generated through the monetization of the companies' intellectual properties can be huge.

On March 15, 2013, DSS CEO Robert Bzdick stated: "We remain confident that the SEC will complete its review process of our Registration Statement on Form S-4 in connection with our proposed merger with Lexington Technology Group. Upon shareholder approval, we look forward to leveraging the strengths and expertise of DSS and LTG to improve execution, drive synergies, and grow the new business with a focus on increasing overall shareholder value."

On May 13, 2013, DSS announced a special meeting of its stockholders that is scheduled on June 20, 2013. A vote on proposals relating to the proposed business combination of DSS and LTG will be taking place. This is another step in the right direction and one that will enable the final piece of the puzzle for the merger to take place.

Thus, I believe that LTG will successfully merge with DSS in the coming months after successful shareholder approval.

Jeff Ronaldi, who will serve as CEO of the newly merged company, stated that he is happy with the progress with regards to the merger.

He discussed how wholly owned subsidiary Bascom Research has already reached one settlement in its ongoing litigation in the Northern District of California, and as a result, LTG will start realizing revenues in the second quarter of 2013. This settlement will include a royalty rate of 4% for the Bascom patents. Reaching this first settlement provides a great precedent for the Bascom portfolio moving forward in its cases against the other defendants, including Facebook (FB) and LinkedIn (LNKD).

Technical analysis

The daily chart remains solid. The 8-day, 13-day and 50-day moving averages are now all trending upwards. Recently, the price has found support at the 21-day moving average and looks strong for higher prices. Stochastics are quite oversold and I believe we will see new highs as the merger gets closer.

(click to enlarge)

Conclusion

The upcoming merger with LTG is quite exciting for shareholders of DSS as the IP monetization potential in the newly merged company will be huge. Smart money investors such as Hudson Bay and Dr. Phillip Frost are backing LTG/DSS for a reason, and leading me to believe that there are new highs around the corner for DSS.

I encourage readings looking for a thorough analysis including some important points regarding the post-merger agreement to take a look here [pdf]:

Disclosure: I am long DSS. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

[Immie]

very interesting article.

[Patentinvestor]

Google, Activision Blizzard And Groupon Await Justice
May 16 2013, 13:33 | 6 comments | includes: ATVI, BCYP.OB, GOOG, GRPN, VRNG, WDDD.OB
Disclosure: I am long VRNG, WDDD.OB, VCI, VZ. (More...)

Patent Litigation is a blooming business and this summer's infringement line-up is stacked and packed with high-profile opportunities. Investment houses have been cautiously participating in these high-risk ventures on a limited basis, mainly for institutional customers, and to lesser degree small and mid-cap funds. I would argue that a mutual fund exclusively devoted to these investments would better serve investors looking to capitalize on today's infringing titans. For now, it's a self service buffet and winning here requires understanding the infringing tech, and becoming an expert in the business of the current and future defendants. There's plenty to choose from but Google (GOOG), Activision Blizzard (ATVI) and Groupon (GRPN) are provoking the most interest today. Let's examine the cases.

Vringo (I/P Engine) vs. Google et al.

This case is nearing the end as Vringo (VRNG) won a unanimous jury verdict last November in a federal district court. At issue is Google's reputation and potentially up to $1.4 billion in royalties and damages. For its part, Google has been on the losing side of several key post trial motions and their latest response, to a very critical plaintiff royalty motion, has relayed a sense of utter desperation. The response was loaded with caustic idioms and references to a design around ruse, that coincidentally failed to get any traction from a previous JMOL. One could almost hear the clunk of the kitchen sink being thrown into the decision process, when statements concerning USPTO final actions were read into the response. Who was Google trying to confuse? The USPTO process allows the patent holder to retain all commensurate rights while the patent certificate stays in force, and these patents are not going anywhere for the next 5 years. Does Google really believe Judge Jackson will grant a 5-year stay? That would make sense in North Korea where Jackson could be an employee of the executive and the judicial branches, possibly an idea shared by Kim Jun-un and Eric Schmidt. Thankfully, this is the USA and our system of government affords proper penalties for companies that recklessly desire to steer into judicial brick walls. Vringo stands to win big as reputation is everything to Google, even at the cost of a black eye or a billion dollar royalty.

Activision Blizzard vs. Worlds, Inc.

In less than 30 business days Activision Blizzard's courtroom drama may become more popular than their multibillion dollar Call of Duty gaming franchise. This $5 billion dollar a year software giant is on a legal collision course with small unknown Worlds, Inc. (WDDD.OB). What's the fight about? Worlds contend that Activision has been using their patents in three-dimensional graphical multi-user interactive virtual world systems, also known as Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG) for years without a license and with knowledge. World's is a PE (practicing entity) and Activision stands to lose big as Worlds comes locked and loaded with 8 key patents in its arsenal. A loss for Activision could spark an avalanche of royalty payments to Worlds, affecting all of the players that make up the $65 billion dollar MMORPG industry. The Markman Hearing, to establish the claim construction, begins June 27, 2013. Activision's exposure here could exceed $700 million, as past willful infringement seems a clearer road than the Vringo vs. Google case. Coincidentally, Activision recently reported a cancellation to its plans to repurchase shares held by its parent Vivendi. The Worlds case is one of the few cases, in my opinion, where the exposure is such that it makes sense to purchase the Plaintiff. Activision does not possess the resources of Google, and the decision to purchase Worlds may prevail over the potential loss risk. Regardless investors could be well rewarded for proper due diligence in this case.

Blue Calypso vs. Groupon et al

Struggling online advertisers Groupon, Yelp (YELP), and IZEA (IZEA.PK) already have enough problems trying to grow their businesses. Enter Blue Calypso (BCYP.OB) an upstart social advertiser that is looking to get paid for its peer-to-peer advertising patents, specifically U.S. patents, 7,664,516 and 8,155,679. The collective group of defendants is in no position to lose, and for this reason I believe the upcoming November 7, 2013 Markman hearing and its ensuing claim construction findings may migrate into a settlement conference. Protracted litigation just doesn't fit the business model, for any of the defendants. However understanding Blue Calypso's peer-to-peer ad patents, in my opinion, is more critical than knowing the defendants. While doing research I gained valuable insight that concluded direct mail coupon giants such as Valassis (VCI) would be smart to augment their mature declining businesses with technology such as this. This compares to the evolving paper directory publishing business that in its prime fueled the lion's share of profits for AT&T (T), Verizon (VZ), CenturyLink (CTL) and Sprint (S) just to name a few. These industry titans, to some degree, have successfully embraced an online format or divested their directory publishing businesses to entities that rely on this concept for future growth.

Conclusion

Invest like a professional. Become more knowledgeable in the technology, the business of the defendants and follow the cases closely. Timing is critical in younger cases such as Groupon, and Activision Blizzard. However, there are still great entry points in mature cases like Vringo vs. Google, courtesy of those that lack the knowledge to decipher the technology, the litigation or the process. Consider diversification as a key to a winning investment formula and exercise the patience required to enjoy the profits.

[Patentinvestor]

I agree 100%.

[Chas1961]

Well I see DSS has become a "Quiet Zone". Not surprising. That conference call was brutal. I understand the reasoning behind the can't comment deal but it sure didn't help cause. (Publicly) The NY CPA just blasted them. Obviously there are many who have been in this stock a loooonnnggg time. The good news is that it appears they are finally done with SEC and off to shareholder vote. I am figuring they have the proxies to pass despite some long time holders feelings. My gut tells me this has not been an easy lift legally. With all the S4's and what I heard today reference cost it must have been a tug of war. I think the execs are tired and just want the merger done, which is a good thing. I was in combat for a year so I can wait six more weeks till merger complete. I think that is THE game changer.

[Chas1961]

There was a ton of buying at 3.10 today. However the 10Q wasn't really anything earth shattering although numbers decrease a bit in some areas fractionally. I have been curious by lack of attention from the street but my guess is that once they announce "Merger Complete" this thing will be treated differently. Will be interested on your take regarding the conference call. I will have to listen later.

[Chas1961]

awesome. I like this as I can stay out of the green/red mentality and just talk specifics. No emotion when I invest. Thans

[Patentinvestor]

I created this board so anyone could talk about any IP stock. The other boards allow just the one single company. Every time I mentioned DSS on VRNG's board they deleted my post. Not here. Write about any IP play you want.