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.
exactly!
Our primary target markets include financial services such as banks and insurance companies, healthcare providers, legal services, government agencies through integrators, technology platforms, e-commerce based services companies, telecommunications and cellular carriers, technology software companies, government agencies and consumers, especially for our mobile and keystroke encryption products. We are focusing our concentration on cyber security and data breach strategic problem areas, such as where compliance with financial, healthcare, legal and government regulations are key and stolen passwords are used to acquire private information illegally.
On their latest 10q, it states that their focus is going to be mainly commercial. I believe it included healthcare and hospitals
Let me see if I can find it and I'll post it.
Oh sorry, I was talking about the post that you replied to. Your own post.
We went over this yesterday. Are you going to re post again today?
I did, nothing has changed for me
bids are down
bid .0101 ask .012
Partners with strikeforce!
td ameritrade
Nice, TDameritrade shows the PR already
ultimately yes, will they get there, most likely not.
some more sideways trading, accumulation is on the rise and rsi at 57. we should start seeing the uptrend soon as folks want to get in and hold their shares as we start getting closer to November 9th or a couple of weeks before.
November 9th
That's a valid question
Are those facts or your opinion?
Two defendants have counterclaimed and both have filed the same defenses as MICROSOFT did. We know what happened with MICROSFT.
nope, not possible, look at recent posts
I believe so, if its not life changing then they didn't come on board soon enough.
it will be great for others , thats for sure.
in my opinion
I posted it for him Zpaul.
Here's the MICROSoft docket, no need to go anywhere.
Case 1:15-cv-00465-RGA Document 9 Filed 12/16/15 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 141
THIRD DEFENSE (Non-infringement)
91. Microsoft has not infringed, directly or indirectly, or made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale any technology that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the Patents either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents.
FOURTH DEFENSE (Invalidity)
92. Upon information and belief, one or more claims of the Patents are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112./quote]
Here you go, it has been tried before, the same lawyers that represented MICROSOFT are also representing one of the defendants
I think it just didn't make sense for a lot of people you know
I agree, Blank Rome and SFOR should have taken care of it ASAP. NOW they have.
I just posted the second half.
FIRST DEFENSE (Non-Infringement)
42. Trustwave does not and has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 literally, under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, indirectly, contributorily, by way of inducement, and/or via any other mechanism of liability.
SECOND DEFENSE (Invalidty)
43. At least claims 53 and 54 of the ‘698 patent, as alleged by StrikeForce in its complaint, are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to comply with one or more of the conditions of patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
THIRD DEFENSE (Equity)
44. StrikeForce is barred in whole or in part under principles of equity, including without limitation, laches, prosecution laches, prosecution history estoppel and disclaimer, waiver, estoppel, and/or unclean hands.
FOURTH DEFENSE (Limitation of Damages)
45. Any claim by StrikeForce for damages is limited under 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and/or 287. StrikeForce is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 287 from recovering damages prior to the date of the filing of its Complaint. StrikeForce is also barred by 35 U.S.C. § 288 from recovering costs associated with its action.
FIFTH DEFENSE (Lack of Ownership)
46. StrikeForce has failed to provide adequate evidence showing ownership of the ’698 patent.
SIXTH DEFENSE (Lack of Standing)
47. StrikeForce lacks standing to bring suit for alleged infringement of ’698 patent.
SEVENTH DEFENSE (Non-Availability of Injunction)
48. StrikeForce is not entitled to injunctive relief under any theory, at least because: (1) StrikeForce has not suffered nor will it suffer irreparable harm because of Trustwave’s conduct; (2) any harm to StrikeForce would be outweighed by the harm to Trustwave if an injunction were entered; (3) StrikeForce has an adequate remedy at law even if it were to prevail
in this action; and (4) the public interest would not be served by an injunction in favor of StrikeForce.
EIGHTH DEFENSE (Res Judicata / Issue Preclusion)
49. StrikeForce’s complaint contains claims and/or issues that are barred in whole or in part under principles of res judicata and/or issue preclusion.
NINTH DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim)
50. StrikeForce’s complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
TRUSTWAVE’S COUNTERCLAIMS
Counterclaim Plaintiff Trustwave Holdings, Inc., (“Trustwave”), as and for its
counterclaims against counterclaim defendant StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (“StrikeForce”),
states as follows:
Nature of Action
1. This is a Declaratory Judgment action for a declaration of non-infringement and
invalidity of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 asserted against Trustwave by
counterclaim defendant in its complaint (see, e.g., StrikeForce Complaint, ¶¶ 17-23, 25-34, 36-
41).
Parties
2. Counterclaim Plaintiff Trustwave Holdings, Inc. is a corporation incorporated in
the state of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 1050,
Chicago, Illinois 60602.
3. On information and belief, as averred in its complaint, Counterclaim Defendant
StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. is a corporation incorporated in the state of Wyoming, with its
principal place of business located at 1090 King Georges Post Road, Edison, New Jersey 08837.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims under
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 as a declaratory judgment action; and, as averred in StrikeForce’s
complaint, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 as an action arising under the Patent Laws, Title
35 of the United States Code.
5. By filing its complaint in this District, counterclaim defendant has affirmatively
sought and consented to the personal jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of Trustwave’s
counterclaims. Moreover, the Court has personal jurisdiction over counterclaim defendant
because StrikeForce has a principal place of business in this District.
6. If and to the extent venue is (or would have been) proper over any of the claims
in StrikeForce’s complaint, venue over all Trustwave’s counterclaims must be proper in this
District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. Furthermore, by maintaining its complaint,
counterclaim defendant StrikeForce has waived any objection it might have or make to venue
over Trustwave’s counterclaims.
Counterclaim I
Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698
7. Trustwave refers and incorporates by reference its unnumbered preamble and
paragraphs 1 through 6 of Trustwave’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
8. Counterclaim defendant avers in its complaint that it is “the owner by assignment
of the ‘698 Patent.”
9. Counterclaim defendant avers in its complaint that Trustwave:
…has infringed claims 53 and 54 of the ‘698 Patent in this district and
elsewhere by making, using, offering for sale, or selling systems and
methods for out-of-band authentication…
…sold infringing products to consumers located in New Jersey.
…will continue to directly infringe claims 53 and 54 of the ’698 Patent,
causing immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiff unless this Court enjoins
and restrains its activities, specifically the acts of making, using, selling, and
offering for sale as previously outlined.
…has knowingly, willfully, and deliberately infringed claims 53 and 54 of the
’698 Patent in conscious disregard of Plaintiff StrikeForce’s rights…
…has…indirectly infringed, and continues to indirectly infringe the ’698
Patent by, inter alia, inducing others to make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale in
the United States the above-mentioned products and services covered by the
’698 Patent, and distributing, marketing, and/or advertising those products
and web services covered by the ’698 Patent in this judicial district and
elsewhere in the United States.
…has knowingly, willfully, and deliberately induced infringement of the ’698
Patent in conscious disregard of Plaintiff StrikeForce’s rights…
…will continue to induce infringement of claims 53 and 54 of the ’698
Patent, causing immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiff StrikeForce
unless this Court enjoins and restrains its activities, specifically the acts of
making, using, selling, and offering for sale, as outlined above.
…has…indirectly infringed, and continues to indirectly infringe the ’698
Patent by, inter alia, knowingly providing to its customers the Trustwave
Managed Two Factor Authentication Service…
…has knowingly, willfully, and deliberately contributed to infringement of
the ’698 Patent in conscious disregard of Plaintiff StrikeForce’s rights…
…will continue to contribute to infringement of the ’698 Patent, causing
immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiff unless this Court enjoins and
restrains Defendant Trustwave’s activities, specifically the acts of making,
using, selling, and offering for sale, as outlined above.
Thus, an actual, substantial controversy exists between Trustwave and StrikeForce concerning
Trustwave’s non-inrignement of the ’698 patent.
10. Trustwave does not and has not infringed any claim of the ’698 patent that
StrikeForce asserts in its complaint, including claims 53 and 54 (the “asserted claims”) (see, e.g.,
StrikeForce Complaint, ¶¶ 17-23, 25-34, 36-41), literally, under the doctrine of equivalents,
directly, indirectly, contributorily, by way of inducement, and/or via any other mechanism of
liability.
11. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
Trustwave is entitled to a declaration that the asserted claims of the ’698 patent are not, and have
not been, infringed by Trustwave or any affiliate (or, with respect to Trustwave products,
customer) of Trustwave.
12. The requested declaratory relief would serve the useful purpose of clarifying the
legal issues and resolving the claims of infringement made by counterclaim defendant in its
complaint.
Counterclaim II
Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698
13. Trustwave reavers and incorporates by reference its unnumbered preamble and
paragraphs 1 through 12 of Trustwave’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
14. At least the asserted claims of the ’698 patent, including claims 53 and 54 that
StrikeForce asserts in its complaint (see, e.g., StrikeForce Complaint, ¶¶ 17-23, 25-34, 36-41),
are invalid or void for failing to satisfy one or more of the conditions of patentability set forth in
Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, for example, §§ 101, 102, 103
and/or 112.
15. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
Trustwave is entitled to a declaration that at least the asserted claims of the ’698 patent are
invalid.
16. The requested declaratory relief would serve the useful purpose of clarifying the
legal issues and resolving the claims of infringement made by counterclaim defendant in its
complaint.
Demand for Jury Trial
17. Trustwave demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
you should read Trustwaves counterclaim! its all a puff piece to please the court and judge
Counterclaim I (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698)
8. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Centrify and StrikeForce
concerning Centrify’s non-infringement of the U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 (“the ’698 Patent”).
8. StrikeForce admits an actual and substantial controversy exists concerning
Defendant’s infringement of the ‘698 Patent. To the extent that there are any remaining
allegations against StrikeForce in paragraph 8, StrikeForce denies them
CENTRIFY’S COUNTERCLAIMS
Counterclaim Plaintiff Centrify Corporation (“Centrify”), as and for its counterclaims
against Counterclaim Defendant StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (“StrikeForce”), states as
follows:
Nature of Action
1. This is a Declaratory Judgment action for a declaration of non-infringement and
invalidity of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 asserted against Centrify by Counterclaim
Defendant StrikeForce in its Complaint.
NATURE OF ACTION
1. StrikeForce admits that Defendant has alleged a civil action against it for
declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 (“the ‘698 Patent”).
StrikeForce denies all other allegations in this paragraph.
not yet,
I know, I highlighted it.
If SFOR is going to prove the defendant wrong in court, they have to admit that the defendants counter claim exists.
you know that it does not mean that the defendant is right
its not open yet!
Of course they have to admit that the defendant has filed a counterclaim.
We ALL know the defendant cant prove this.
1. StrikeForce admits that Defendant has alleged a civil action against it for declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 (“the ‘698 Patent”)
This should put an end to all the wrong information that one poster keeps bringing up.
From the man himself!
What happened I missed it?
Flippers and day traders. It's their job, they have to make money. Their game is not to hold.
Like moneymaker8 said , they add liquidity to the stock and consolidation and sideways movement is always healthy.
Paid off 1.8 mill in debt
Very true
I had just noticed it last month and brought it up one time here and it seemed a lot of folks were not aware.
Many have recently joined the forum are not aware of the direction this company is taking!
IF these 3 companies settle, we can be sure that the settlements will NOT be anywhere close to what SFOR settled with Microsoft. SFOR wants to be taken seriously and want to make a statement IMO
The company has not gotten a lot of respect from other authentication technology providers.
"We literally went out to a bunch of people and told them we had the patent and they treated us like a dirty old mangy mutt," George Waller, StrikeForce's director of marketing, told eWEEK in a March interview.
SFOR expanding to Europe
European Inquiries
Email: info@strikeforcetech.eu
http://www.strikeforcetech.com/contact_us.html