Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
WO/EU Patent. Here are the links once again.
It has been 30 months since the international filing date.
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014145186&recNum=3&maxRec=9&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&queryString=FP%3A%28strikeforce+technologies%29&tab=PCT+Biblio
http://www.hgf.com/media/25513/Timeline-of-a-European-patent-application.pdf
Also look at the section fees paid.
The Renewal fee patent year 03 was paid on 03/08/16.
If you look at the pdf file link attached, SFOR is already at the black arrow waiting for a response. A supplementary search report was filed on 10/15/16
Quote:
The purpose of Supplementary International Search (SIS) is to give PCT applicants the option of requesting supplementary search from one of the participating International Search Authorities (ISA) in addition to the main PCT search, thereby reducing the likelihood of new prior art being found in the national phase.
PCT applicants may request a Supplementary International Search to be carried out by a different International Searching Authority than the Authority handling the PCT application. Nordic Patent Institute is one of the ISAs that offer Supplementary International Searches..
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP14763895&lng=en&tab=event
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP14763895&lng=en&tab=legal
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP14763895&lng=en&tab=main
43 Minute INTERVIEW with George Waller
Awesome post, very informative. A good insight on how the company came up and what is to come.
we know its not, but its a really attractive patent to have especially if it has an international patent
Mobiltrust International/EU patent might be granted soon.
European bulletin comes out on Nov 16th, if its granted, it will be announced in the bulletin
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP14763895
I posted a while back with links on what stage the application is, its ready to receive its grant if no changes are made.
Ahhh, I'll keep an eye for your post, the midnight shift post!! Lol
The video I was talking about is the NBBI presentation video by George Waller. He makes a statement about Intel..
I could have bet money I heard it on the one of the interviews, I guess I heard what I wanted to hear! lol
Your posts makes the most absolute sense!
McAfee Complete Data Protection Data Sheet.
http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/data-sheets/ds-complete-data-protection-advanced.pdf
Enterprise-Grade Drive Encryption
Secure your confidential data with an
enterprise-grade security solution that is FIPS
140-2 and Common Criteria EAL2+ certified
and accelerated with the Intel® Advanced
Encryption Standard—New Instructions (Intel
AES-NI) set. McAfee Complete Data Protection—
Advanced uses drive encryption combined with
strong access control via two-factor pre-boot
authentication to prevent unauthorized access to confidential data on endpoints, including
desktops, VDI workstations, laptops, USB drives,
CD/DVDs, and more.
Since GaurdedID is an ePO client of McAfee and now McAfee is Intel Security, I wonder if that's why it was mentioned that Keystroke Encryption will come or comes as part of the Intel firmware.
Seems like a matter of time to me until we get those announcements that Kay has mentioned. Exciting times!
http://www.mcafee.com/us/index.html
Lol. Are they covered in plastic? Hopefully she has cookies, sugar cookies would be nice. Lmao!
I did, I'm showing up to the shareholders meeting. A lot of us are in fact.
Out of a bedroom in a private residence? Really, really? C'mon man, put some more effort into it.
You're saying I don't have one? or you are saying to leave your post alone?
What to expect with these 3 lawsuits
This is the time line from Phonefactor, does it look similar to the current 3? , yes it does. did it ever get this far, no it didnt! Yes its a coin toss but it seems like one side of the coin is heavier so im willing to take a chance!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
STRIKEFORCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
))))))
Civil Action No. 13-cv-490-RGA-MPT
v. )
PHONEFACTOR, INC., et. al.,
DEFENDANTS.
)))))
[PROPOSED] AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
This ____ day of ______________, 2015, the Court having ordered on November 9,
2015, that the stay ordered on June 10, 2015 is lifted and that the parties shall provide a proposed
schedule (D.I. 223);
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Mediation. The parties have provided an update regarding potential future
mediation-related activities to Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon. The parties shall endeavor to
conduct any further mediation by January 15, 2016, subject to the availability of Judge Fallon
and the parties.
2. Supplementation of Existing Expert Reports. By January 15, 2016, each party
with the burden of proof shall serve any supplements to its existing (already submitted) expert
report on infringement or invalidity to address subject matter in the original expert report
impacted by any modifications that the Memorandum Order issued by Judge Andrews on September 29, 2015 (D.I. 219) made to the claim construction in the Report and
Recommendation issued by Judge Thynge on January 29, 2015 (D.I. 168).
3. Rebuttals to Supplementations of Existing Expert Reports. Each party shall serve
by February 12, 2016 (a) any rebuttals to any of the supplementations to existing expert reports
submitted pursuant to paragraph 2 above and (b) any supplements to its existing (already
submitted) rebuttal expert report on non-infringement or validity to address subject matter in the
original expert report impacted by any modifications that the Memorandum Order issued by
Judge Andrews on September 29, 2015 (D.I. 219) made to the claim construction in the Report
and Recommendation issued by Judge Thynge on January 29, 2015 (D.I. 168).
4. Supplemental Expert Reports (e.g., Secondary Considerations). Supplemental
expert reports (e.g. secondary considerations of obviousness) as called for in the original
Scheduling Order (D.I. 50) are due March 4, 2016.
5. Expert Discovery. Expert discovery shall be commenced to be completed by
April 1, 2016.
6. Case Dispositive Motions. All case dispositive motions, an opening brief, and
affidavits, if any, in support of the motion shall be served and filed on or before May 15, 2016.
Unless the Court directs otherwise, no case dispositive motions may be filed at a time before the
date set forth in this paragraph. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the Court's Local Rules,
except as modified during the scheduling conference. If the matter is scheduled for a bench trial,
no case dispositive motions shall be filed without prior authorization of the Court. Any reference
to exhibits in the briefs must refer to the specific pages of the exhibit proffered in support of a
party’s argument. If the exhibit is a deposition, both the page and line numbers must be
specified.
7. Daubert Motions. To the extent any objection to expert testimony is made
pursuant to the principles announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993), as incorporated in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, it shall be made by motion no later than
the deadline for dispositive motions set forth herein, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
8. Pretrial Conference. On October 27, 2016, the Court will hold a Final Pretrial
Conference in Chambers with counsel beginning at 9:30 a.m. Unless otherwise ordered by the
Court, the parties should assume that filing the pretrial order satisfies the pretrial disclosure
requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). The parties shall file with the Court the
joint proposed final pretrial order with the information required by the form of Final Pretrial
Order which accompanies this Scheduling Order on or before October 20, 2016.
9. Motions in Limine. Motions in limine shall not be separately filed. All in limine
requests and responses thereto shall be set forth in the proposed pretrial order. Each party shall
be limited to five in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted by the Court. The in limine
request and any response shall contain the authorities relied upon; each in limine request may be
supported by a maximum of three pages of argument and may be opposed by a maximum of
three pages of argument. If more than one party is supporting or opposing an in limine request,
such support or opposition shall be combined in a single three (3) page submission, unless
otherwise ordered by the Court. No separate briefing shall be submitted on in limine requests,
unless otherwise permitted by the Court.
10. Jury Instructions, Voir Dire, and Special Verdict Forms. Where a case is to be
tried to a jury, pursuant to Local Rules 47 and 51 the parties should file joint proposed voir dire,
instructions to the jury, and special verdict forms and jury interrogatories three full business days
before the final pretrial conference. That submission shall be accompanied by a computer diskette (in WordPerfect format) which contains the instructions, proposed voir dire, special
verdict forms, and jury interrogatories.
11. Trial. This matter is scheduled for a 5 day jury trial beginning at 9:30 a.m. on
November 7, 2016, with the subsequent trial days beginning at 9:00 a.m. For the purpose of
completing pretrial preparations, counsel should plan on each side being allocated a total number
of hours to present their case.
___________________________________
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
oh my god!
13G FILING.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=11328367
No it's not, a patent troll has no products.
As you know, you can purchase their products on line or in person.
You know where
SFOR's Partners, Real companies that use or distribute SFOR products or license
https://veratad.com/partners/
Quote:
Veratad Technologies, LLC is a world class provider of online/real-time Identity Verification and Knowledge Based Authentication Solutions for those who conduct business on the Internet or any business that needs to verify an individual’s age or identity.
Alvarez LLC. Huge government contractor.
https://www.alvarezit.com/what-we-do/strikeforce
https://www.alvarezit.com/clients/federal-clients
Example of 1 of many recent contracts that include IT solutions.
http://government-contracts.insidegov.com/l/9567400/NNG15SD19B.
IDENTITY GUARD® was created by Intersections Inc. (NASDAQ: INTX)
http://www.identityguard.com/
White Sky, Inc.
http://www.whitesky.com/index.html
Hopefully this 10q will show an ok increase in revenue, Kay said the final numbers were not in yet.
SFOR Products have been getting a lot of attention since the MS/PF lawsuits at the beginning of 2016.
It's understandable that folks can't hold longer or were let down by Kay's video, at this point it's a waiting game for us longs.
It's also a great opportunity for believers to load!
Alright, accurate post with links to back it up!!
All FACTS HERE!
Yes good read, phone factor tried to fight and argue, even tried to take advantage of the judge not being clear between the terms "isolation" and "facilities"
Blank Rome should have caught that from the beginning and clarify those terms, big mistake, I bet they are not going through the same issues this time.
If anyone has access to the documents on a pacer website, these are some good reads.
I don't know if you have access but in case you do, here are some towards the end of the case.
They were saved by this document
Document 219 Filed 09/29/15
Document 224 Filed 11/30/15
11. Trial. This matter is scheduled for a 5 day jury trial beginning at 9:30 a.m. on
November 7, 2016, with the subsequent trial days beginning at 9:00 a.m. For the purpose of
completing pretrial preparations, counsel should plan on each side being allocated a total number
of hours to present their case.
Yes I'm going through the case documents, I had read all the way to document 180 and stopped. This was like last month. I'm going through the rest of the documents right now. I'll reply to your post in a little bit with some interesting notes found on documents 215 and on
Dude I just logged in today on my phone, I didn't scroll far down to see your other post, take it easy on me!
But there was with phonefactor no? Wasn't there a marksman hearing?
Quotation marks would've been help full ""
A good read about what a law firm looks for when taking patent infringement cases on contingency.
Not Blank Rome's website but we can get a good point of view of how a law firm feels about it.
http://www.sriplaw.com/5-factors-consider-take-patent-infringement-cases-contingency/
"Taking a patent infringement case on contingency requires skills and experience in many areas, but two are key: determining infringement and analyzing damages. The investment of time, energy and resources in a contingency case can be substantial. Therefore, it’s not surprising that many of the determining factors for selecting a case revolve around potential financial recovery.
There are several factors we look at when we evaluate patent infringement cases to determine whether it is appropriate to take on a contingency basis.
The strength of the patent.
The strength of the infringement case.
The value of the infringing feature to the infringer.
The identity of the infringer.
The willfulness of the infringement.
Your lost profits.
The availability of a favorable forum for suit.
1. The strength of the patent.
All patents are not created equal. Before we accept a case we perform an analysis of the patent prosecution history at the patent office. Problems encountered at the USPTO can signal potential problems for litigation relating to the patent.
A review of the prior art cited during the patent prosecution can also be important. In addition, a prior art search performed prior to filing litigation can help identify potential problems and suggest possible solutions and strategies.
2. The strength of the infringement case.
The language of a patent claim determines what the patent holder owns. Think of it as a property survey. If you own a piece of real estate the survey shows where your property begins and ends and what you own. The same is true for the terms of a patent claim which identify your intellectual property in words (or drawings for a design patent).
Patent infringement requires proof that the infringer has practiced at least one claim of the patent. A jury or judge must compare what the infringer is selling or doing with the language of claims of the patent. Infringement is found when what the infringer is doing matches the language of a claim exactly.
There are many ways to measure damages for infringement. Sometimes copyright owners are deprived of income or royalties when their works are stolen and used without authorization.
We analyze patent claims to determine whether we think a judge or jury will find infringement. How well the claims match up to the infringement will influence whether we decide to accept the case.
3. The value of the infringed features to the infringer.
Often the patent claim infringed may be just one small part of a complex machine or system. Patent law permits a plaintiff to recover money damages that are linked to the feature of the patent that was infringed. How much that feature is worth to the infringer becomes an important factor in determining damages.
Money earned by the infringer from the infringing feature may be recovered as part of the patent holder’s damages. We look at business earned by the infringer from exploiting your patents. We also look at comparable royalty rates for similar patents and technologies to forecast potential infringement recoveries.
4. The identity of the infringer.
Before filing suit we try to determine as best we can whether the defendant will be able to pay a judgment for damages. The time and expense of an infringement suit cannot be justified if the infringer will be unable to pay a judgment at the end of the case.
5. The willfulness of the infringement.
Whether the infringement was innocent or willful is an important factor. Willful infringement, if proven, can result in damages being trebled. An award of three times the infringement damages where the infringement was willful can serve as a powerful incentive to settlement.
6. Your lost profits.
Have you been in business and using the patent? Have you lost profits to the infringer as a result of the infringement?
Lost profits add an additional dimension to an infringement case. If your business has been damaged or failed to reach its potential because of infringement then lost profits may be a component of your damages for patent infringement.
7. The availability of a favorable forum.
Patent infringement cases are complicated. Several federal district courts have developed an expertise at handling patent cases. Some also have specialized patent procedures and expedited scheduling requirements."
I have not had time lately to keep up here, what do you mean by this? if you may explain, thanks
Kay removed agenda allowing new news to be addressed at meeting
I know I'm not crazy right, there was a buy of 4000 shares at .0066 around 2:30 or so, this buy brought the price up to .0066. Im looking back through the buys on my level 2 and now its gone.
and now a 4200 trade after hours posted at .0063
I know, Is your comment directed towards me or in general?
ITS A PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN, JUDGE HAS NOT APPROVED IT YET.
DID YOU GUYS SEE THE PACER UPDATE?
IM READING IT RIGHT NOW
TA is not gagged. If you email, CC mark on the email for anyone that would like to check.
It's not adjusted for the reverse splits that it had.
CAN YOU CALL THE TA?
oh nope he didnt, I read the comments wrong.
At least more eyes on sfor, either for day trading or long potions, at least more liquidity if needed
Exactly, the risk to reward ratio here is incredible.
It's a matter of time dgross.
Exactly,
Lead counsel for Defendant Duo Security Incorporated is unavailable on October 7, 2016, due to
a scheduling conflict, and respectfully requests that the conference be rescheduled to a later date.
In the interests of efficiency and in an effort to streamline the cases
ARXS DISAPPEARED, did he load at .008?
System running slow this morning! Lol