Friday, May 12, 2017 1:54:15 AM
this was the opinion of the board basher.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130738537
Here he is right (but alredy wrong re. appeals court) since:
...because the parties stipulated to non-infringement...
IMO thats why the appeals court talks about likely outcome.
Their job is done by changing the Claim Construction (CC) plus:
...We vacate the district court’s construction and remand for further proceedings...
IMO Judge Chabbria will continue.(CC changed, district court erred in a portion.)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=131285276
Recent CPMV News
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/02/2023 05:17:22 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/03/2023 06:44:38 PM
NanoViricides Reports that the Phase I NV-387 Clinical Trial is Completed Successfully and Data Lock is Expected Soon • NNVC • May 2, 2024 10:07 AM
ILUS Files Form 10-K and Provides Shareholder Update • ILUS • May 2, 2024 8:52 AM
Avant Technologies Names New CEO Following Acquisition of Healthcare Technology and Data Integration Firm • AVAI • May 2, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM