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.
they are not laughing now my man!
Shakeout might be coming soon before end of day. Hang on tight. I wish I did back when the false news were posted. I kick myself every time I look at my td account. Lol
VNDM is @ .0085 and today and this whole week he will be retail, matter of fact he will not dilute because there is nothing to dilute.
For the new investors here, do your DD
ARE YOU GUYS WATCHING LEVEL 2? 7'S GOT WIPED OUT FAST!
nothing new, someone logged in to the case but no updates were posted
I don't see any updates on the pacer website, we might not get any until the end of day.
I'll have my pacer account web page up all day to keep an eye on it
in the otc market makers can hide their number of shares, VNDM likes to do that and sit at 10k but if you look closely, he always moves after 250k or so hits on his 10k offer.
I remember seeing one time it took almost a 1 mil hit for his 10k to go away. good thing is his not diluting
Yes good luck to all!
I've been here since .0013, lets make money!
WE'RE STILL HERE, WE KNOW WHATS COMING, NO NEED TO STAY GLUED TO THIS FORUM TODAY.
NOW MONDAY, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY!
SFOR
Yep, copy and paste right here from the court filings
1:15-cv-00465-RGA StrikeForce Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Date filed: 06/05/2015
Date terminated: 01/20/2016
Date of last filing: 01/20/2016
History
Doc.
No. Dates Description
Filed & Entered: 06/05/2015
Docket Text No Summons Issued
1
Filed & Entered: 06/05/2015
Docket Text Complaint
2
Filed & Entered: 06/05/2015
Docket Text Magistrate Consent Forms
3
Filed & Entered: 06/05/2015
Docket Text Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner
Filed & Entered: 06/10/2015
Docket Text Case Assigned/Reassigned
4
Filed & Entered: 10/06/2015
Docket Text Affidavit of Service
5
Filed & Entered: 10/13/2015
Terminated: 10/14/2015
Docket Text Stipulation to EXTEND Time
6
Filed & Entered: 10/14/2015
Docket Text SO ORDERED
7
Filed & Entered: 11/19/2015
Terminated: 11/20/2015
Docket Text Stipulation to EXTEND Time
Filed & Entered: 11/20/2015
Docket Text SO ORDERED
Filed & Entered: 12/02/2015
Docket Text Case Referred to Mediation
8
Filed & Entered: 12/04/2015
Docket Text Order Setting Mediation Conferences
9
Filed & Entered: 12/16/2015
Docket Text Answer to Complaint
10
Filed & Entered: 12/17/2015
Docket Text Disclosure Statement
11
Filed & Entered: 01/06/2016
Docket Text Order Setting Scheduling Conference
12
Filed & Entered: 01/14/2016
Docket Text Stipulation
13
Filed & Entered: 01/19/2016
Docket Text Order
14
Filed & Entered: 01/19/2016
Docket Text Oral Order
15
Filed & Entered: 01/20/2016
Docket Text Stipulation of Dismissal
16
Filed & Entered: 01/20/2016
Docket Text Order
17
Filed & Entered: 01/20/2016
Docket Text Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner
It took 6 months for microsoft to settle
Court Case Number
StrikeForce Technologies Inc. (pla) dedce 1:2015-cv-00465 830
DATE FILED DATE CLOSED
06/05/2015 01/20/2016
Are there any gaps to be filled? It seems like it took off hard from .0043
I guess we will wait and see
Thanks
i read the court filings, this is the chapter 11 plan
CLASS# DESCRIPTION IMPAIRED
(Y/N)
TREATMENT
Delmar Janovec 80% ownership of
preferred stock
Yes All old equity/membership interests
shall be retired and extinguished
and receive no distribution or value.
Fractional
Shareholders
This class also
i n c l u d e s a l l
shareholders listed
in the Debtor’s
Schedule F
Yes All old equity/membership interests
shall be retired and extinguished and
receive no distribution or value.
Douglas J. Horton Proof of Claim No.
2 as a secured
claim. Motion to
be filed to modify
claim to equity
holder.
Yes All old equity/membership interests
shall be retired and extinguished and
receive no distribution or value.
unless something changed and i missed it
New here but I have a question, will ARIO still be trading after the common shares get cancelled? what will be left to trade?
thanks in advance
This is what I like to read
At least fourteen (14) days prior to the conference scheduled herein, counsel shall personally
meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), and shall submit a discovery plan to the
undersigned not later than 72 hours prior to the conference with the Court. The discovery plan may
include a summary of the status of settlement negotiations.
someone here asked mark, mark replied stating he could not talk about it
Thanks for the good picks! I don't have PM ability but keep them coming!
Nice. I'm going to have to do the same you did with e trade. I got hit with one yesterday. I lost track!
Robert were you able to get your bids filled? also how are you doing with your restriction on your account? were you able to take it off by talking to etrade.
I think it will hoover around this price until closer to september
SFOR
I sold last time they drove it down, this time I have my bids ready!
Strikeforce is ready for European Inquiries now
[url][/url][tag]http://www.strikeforcetech.com/contact_us.html[/tag]
For the first time SeekingAlpha posted news on SFOR. Got my alert today
More eyes on SFOR
They address your concern in their 10Q. It's a good read you should read it
1.8 mill
I BELIEVE THATS $400 NOT $40
If Guarded ID is an ePO client of Mcaffe, is it already running?
I was reading this this morning,
Look at the first page, where it describes the Enterprise-Grade Drive Encryption
here is the link to the data sheet
[url][/url][tag]http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/data-sheets/ds-complete-data-protection-advanced.pdf [/tag]
"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"
Lol!! I will definitely
Forward me that book you wrote
whats the signal?
BIG HITS @ 31
Thats fine, let them compensate themselves and others that help them make SFOR more appealing to buyers and retail outlets. They are the ones waking up every morning to walk into that building and get to work.
thats fine, let them catch up, but what you're posting is out of date just like sms 2FA
http://www.strikeforcetech.com/PID/index.html
strikeforce is not just SMS, voice and fingerprint are other authentication factors
Thank you for the informative post!
Look at Trustwave's Eighth Defense
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.
Some info on RES JUDICATA
Res judicata is raised when a party thinks that a particular claim was already, or could have been, litigated and therefore, should not be litigated again. When addressing a res judicata argument, a court will usually look at three factors. First, the court will consider whether there was previous litigation in which identical claims were raised, or in which identical claims could have been raised. The second factor to be considered is that the parties must be the same parties as those who litigated the original action. The third factor is that the original action must have received final judgment on the merits.
Are trustwave's lawyers serious? How is trustwave and Microsoft the same parties??? this just shows that they are buying time for a settlement in my opinion.
Anyone else has another point of view?
Yes this is what MICROSOFT said on their defense. Sounds very familiar!!
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Microsoft admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,870,599 (the “’599 patent”) appears on its
face to have issued on January 11, 2011, and is entitled “Multichannel Device Utilizing A
Centralized Out-of-Band Authentication System (COBAS).” Microsoft denies that the ’599
patent was “duly and legally issued.” Microsoft admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,870,599C1 (the
“reexamination certificate”) appears on its face to have issued on December 27, 2011, and that
copies of the ’599 patent and reexamination certificate appear to be attached to StrikeForce’s
Complaint. Microsoft denies that the reexamination certificate was “duly and legally issued,”
and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7.
Yep, its a matter of time now.
Holding my shares for further news
SFOR
Counter Claim
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
12
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.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
FOR THESE REASONS, Trustwave respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and grant the following relief:
A. That the Court enter an order declaring that StrikeForce take nothing by its complaint in this action;
B. That the Court enter judgment against StrikeForce and in favor of Trustwave, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
C. That the Court enter a declaratory judgment that Trustwave does not infringe any asserted claim of the ’698 patent;
D. That the Court enter a declaratory judgment that the asserted claims of the ’698 patent are invalid; and E. That the Court enter an order awarding Trustwave its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees in this action because this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 as a result of, inter alia, the above-pleaded denials, defenses, and/or counterclaims
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.