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.
The 7 mil shares have a lock up on them for at least 3 months, until after Markman and probably a Markman ruling.
The question everyone on this board wants to know is why you come back to continue to post if WDDD is such a piece of garbage and you hold no position?
We all know the answer,
They have to convert to get these shares as the series C is still a note.
You can bet that Max/ Susman has one focus and that is on preparing a well researched and comprehensive reply. He has no interest in the SP nor the desires of board posters and/or Hudson Bay conversion rights. Susman is commited because of the value that the patents hold, they will do thier job throughly and you will all applaud, period.
A similar argument to Activision's was made in district court but it was reversed by the federal appeals court. It centered on the Application Data Sheet ("ADS") making a continuation reference to the provisional application, even though the patent itself did not reference the provisional application due to an oversight by the USPTO.
Here's some highlights of the appeals court's decision:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7600470976941784730&q=%22119(e)(1)%22+%22specific+reference%22+to+the+provisional+application&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5
In prosecuting the '859 patent, DuPont originally filed a provisional application on March 6, 2001, and on February 27, 2002, it filed a non-provisional application. The Application Data Sheet ("ADS") filed with the non-provisional application stated: "Continuity Data: This application is a non-provisional of provisional 60/273669 2001-03-06 WHICH IS PENDING." The patent as issued, however, did not reference the provisional application due to an oversight by the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). After issuance, DuPont sought a certificate of correction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 254 to add a reference to the provisional application on the title page of the '859 patent. The PTO issued the Certificate of Correction on July 26, 2005, adding to the title page, "Related U.S. Application Data, Provisional application No. 60/273,669, filed on March 6, 2001."
35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) requires, for a claim of priority, that the non-provisional application contain "a specific reference to the provisional application." Under MPEP § 201.11, the specific reference can be either in the first sentence of the specification 1361*1361 or in the application data sheet. "If the specific reference is only contained in the application data sheet, then the benefit claim information will be included on the front page of any patent or patent application publication, but will not be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification." Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.76(b)(5) ("Providing [domestic priority information] in the application data sheet constitutes the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) ..., and need not otherwise be made part of the specification."); 37 C.F.R. § 1.76(d)(4) ("The Office will capture bibliographic information from the application data sheet ...").
In this case, it is undisputed that the ADS contained a reference to the provisional application. But MacDermid argues that the reference in the ADS was insufficient because DuPont did not use the language that is "authorized by the MPEP to claim the benefit of a provisional application." Under MPEP § 201.11, "[w]hen the nonprovisional application is entitled to an earlier U.S. effective filing date of one or more provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), a statement such as `This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/ ___, filed ___, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/ ___, filed ___.' should appear as the first sentence(s) of the description or in an application data sheet." (emphasis added).
Here, rather than the precise language suggested in the MPEP, the ADS in the non-provisional application stated: "Continuity Data: This application is a non-provisional of provisional 60/273669 2001-03-06 WHICH IS PENDING." Contrary to MacDermid's argument, this reference did not run afoul of the MPEP by failing to use magic words. The MPEP provision requires only that the applicant use a statement "such as" the one provided in Section 201.11. A reasonable person reading the language in the ADS would have concluded that the applicant was claiming priority to an earlier provisional application. Thus, we find no defect in the language used to reference the provisional application here.
By putting the continuity data in the ADS, DuPont expected that the PTO would capture the information and place it on the title page of its patent. As MacDermid notes, however, there were some indications during prosecution that the PTO had failed to capture the information. MPEP § 201.11. We hold that a lack of 1362*1362 diligence during prosecution, at least under the facts of this case, does not convert a PTO error into an applicant error for the purpose of seeking a post-issuance certificate of correction.
It is, of course, desirable to have applicants correct the PTO's mistakes in pending applications as soon as possible so that the correct information is reflected in published applications and issued patents. Nevertheless, nothing in the statute conditions eligibility for a certificate to correct PTO error on the applicant's diligence in correcting the mistake, and the statute does not set any time limit for seeking such corrections. 35 U.S.C. § 254 ("Whenever a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, is clearly disclosed by the records of the Office, the Director may issue a certificate of correction stating the fact and nature of such mistake, under seal, without charge, to be recorded in the records of patents."). Additionally, because there is a requirement that such certificates issue only if the mistake is "clearly disclosed by the records of the [PTO]," the chance that competitors will be harmed by any delay is minimal. In this case, the continuity data was included in the ADS, a document contained in the prosecution history.
Further, DuPont could have corrected its published application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.221 and MPEP § 1130. While failure to make such a correction may have potential consequences,[6] we see no reason why failure to correct a published application should prevent the patentee from later correcting his issued patent under 35 U.S.C. § 254.
In sum, the undisputed facts in this case show that the '859 patent is entitled to claim priority to the provisional application as a matter of law: the provisional and non-provisional applications are identical; the non-provisional application was filed within 12 months of the filing of the provisional application; the two applications 1363*1363 share a common inventor; and the non-provisional application included a specific reference to the provisional application in the application data sheet. Thus, we vacate and remand for the district court to consider MacDermid's remaining invalidity and unenforceability challenges in light of the correct priority date, as well as the remaining preliminary injunction factors.
Worlds provisional patent application and numbers are clearly cited in the 1st and 2nd patent applications as well as the patent examiners notes which can be found on the USPTO web site in the file wrapper history.
BTW the patent office is responsible for noticing the provisional on the front page of the patent, not the applicant.
FYI
You consistently refute the facts in this case. Susman is a lot smarter than u and would 't stick around for a losing case. They don't need the publicity as you have stated, they are one of the top litigation firms in America and don 't mess with losers. Wake up, pal everyone on this board know ur agenda. You are a joke that ur not aware of.
Those of you who have lost track of the underlying fundematals of this comapany and the patents potential value based on your own DD and augmented by EDVA's thoughtful and indepth analysis should move on. The company doen't need short term shaereholders. This is a great purge of the flippers and cry baby's.
All you sellers will be crying again after Markman on the woulda coulda shoulda boards.
Epidite short rumoring somewhere else. This board has seen n heard all this drivel before and knows the agenda behind it.
WDDD has additional claims that have not been cited in the action against Activision, these non cited claims were issued after the lawsuit was filed and have different areas of gaming covered. The assets are clearly greater than you understand.
WDDD also has a $45 Mil. NOL which has never been factored into the value of the shares or the enterprise value.
Finally WDDD is not a troll by any definition, it developed the Technology did not acquire the patents and back into a shell, is transparent as to major shareholders is not pursuing frivolous lawsuits and finally it is and has been a practicing entity.
A little to fast and loose with facts and terms demonstrating a careless and sloppy analysis.
And the same thing will happen to you post Markman.
You don't appear to hold stong convictions based on your own DD and stand by them.
Whichever way the wind blows.
I'll bet 100k shares that WDDD goes over$.80 p/s. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Susman has reputation risk, significant out of pocket money spent over 2 years on this case and cases they haven't taken taken so their DD was significant. They don't take cases lightly and their win against Activision dealt with many similar issues having Activision settling after Markman.
Do some research pal or take my bet if you're so sure of yourself. Show this board how right you are. We are waiting.
Not compared to the jump VRNG had pre and post Markman
You clearly do not understand the difference in O/S and A/S.
This is fairly fundamental and necessary for the company to position itself for a senior exchange listing.
If management has taken the company this far and had the tools all along to affect a R/S and not used them, then who are you to question the wisdom of the proxy?
IMO what we are seeing is a coordinated effort to drive the SP down prior to Markman by shorts who hope to cover. Nothing fundamental has occurred to explain these sales other than manipulation.
Clearly you have not been following the rigorous analysis of Susman before taking this case nor the analysis of EDVA.
This is a far thing from a Vegas gamble. I'll take a side wager on a successful Markman if you have the money and are so sure of yourself.
The truth is that, Kidrin gave up 14 Mil options to the company in Sept. and received the 7.5 mil as part of his employment renewal when the shares were trading at $.07 and has pledged those options in the event of a full note conversion.
That's called putting your money where your mouth is.
If after a successful Markman institutional investors want in. They need a senior exchange and an equity base of over $5 Mil.
Are they suppose to wait for penny stock traders to give Thierry approval. No way to plan for a catalyst event or run a real IP company. That's the problem with investors in BB's, short term thinking.
WDDD has had the right to do an RS since their last proxy and could have done so anytime if they wanted to.
What everyone seems to be missing is that these proxy's take 45 to 60 days depending on SEC comments and are costly.
The company needs the additional authorized on a stated basis in the proxy to cover the shares and warrants if all are exercised by Hudson Bay and Iroquois. There is not enough left to cover options and shares for possible IP acquisitions.
The RS is a timing tool to act swiftly for possible uplisting and to take advantage of momentum from a favorable Markman.
To start another proxy for another RS vote and wait 2-3 months provides no ability for WDDD to move opportunistically and allow institutional funds to jump in thereby retarding SP appreciation.
Everyone excitedly talks about the rocket primed to take off and ready for the ride but wants to second guess and weigh down the rocket just when fuel has been requested by the astronaut that got us here.
I've read innumerable posts on how Worlds could be crushed at Markman and the consequence of the Hudson Bay funding terms to the negative but I've yet to read an intelligent analysis on the merits of the claims construction filing and Activisions reply.
This is the heart of the Markman and it's outcome. Clearly a truly informed investor after a through reading will see the stretch the Activisions lawyers are trying to make by " importing limitations to the claims" that don't exist and the USPO never approved.
Thoughtful analysis of these filing are what should be discussed because they give the investor the best guidance on the likely Markman outcome on the over 50 claims asserted by Worlds.
In that light the funding and timing for potential future litigation look highly favorable to Worlds and in fact cleverly tactical.
Opening claim construction brief. They have been filed today
The prior art from the NCSoft case was what was submitted to the USPTO as required by law for the prosecution of the additional contingency claims that resulted in 4 additional patents " over" the prior art of the NC Soft case. Which are the very claims being cited in the current litigation against Activision. To infer that the NC Soft prior art was never discussed or considered is incorrect, in fact it was developed by Ropes & Grey the law firm that defended NCSoft and now Activisions lawyers, therefore they have to deal with prior art they dug up and the USPTO has considered and granted patents to WDDD over them.
It is incorrect also to state that Worlds returned any settlement money to NCSoft, that is an unsupportable and false comment.
Once against read details, this is accrued salary and options, and remember no one would be here holding WDDD shares if he had not pursued these patents for 15 years and recruited Sussman.
Re: post 8832
Further inaccurate information, the PPM investors did not pay $.50 they have options IF conversion occurs, which it has not, at $.50 & $.75 until July 1 so they are out of the money currently. And WDDD can prepay the notes and not issue stock or options at it's option.
Re: post 7896
Worlds did not acquire the patent from the Starbright Foundation. They developed the technology and partnered with Spielberg/Starbright for the launch and running the site. Worlds developed, owned and practiced the technology and underlying patents form the very beginning thru today.
Keep dreaming that the dips are gonna keep coming, when you get the dust out of your eyes the train will be way down the tracks
In your world
It's beginning to sound like a little boy who has to take a wizz and can't wait like a man. Relieve yourself and all of us. We know when we are going and will enjoy the ride.
Re:grey post 6404
If your read the complete documents on the SEC site you clearly see that the conversions are @ $.35 for C notes ( market average for the past 3 weeks) $ .50 for A notes $.75 for B notes. Is that not clear? those are exact not variable numbers and premium to current market. They have to get the sp above that to be in the money.
Regarding a lower raise amount, I don't think you can get Hudson Bay , Iroquois or Barry Honig to sign up for chump change investments for under $1 mil. It's not worth their time or money.
Finally the value of these successful IP bankers reputation to a small cap IP play is invaluable. So the answers to your repeated questions are clear and transparent to all to see and many have made the correct interpretations of the potential valuation and exposure lift this deal brings to WDDD.
Greymatter
Why don't you look at the link below from the press relase to answer your own question
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1232441-following-the-smart-money-in-the-intellectual-property-battle
Someone needs thier diaper changed, a liitle irritation from pissing thier pants.
Re post 4760
I suggest that little boys that are afraid of thunder packup thier small toys and go home, get into bed and wait for mommy to tuck you in and tell you everything is going to be OK.
No short positions?
Just go to www.otcshortreports.com amd look up WDDD.
Sure looks short to me!
Krangel has a history of mistatements and retractions, the facts are the facts and he got it wrong.
There are other innacuracies of fact in that piece as well.
Krangel has a history of mistatements and retractions, the facts are the facts and he got it wrong.
There are other innacuracies of fact in that piece as well.
Krangel has a history of mistatements and retractions, the facts are the facts and he got it wrong.
There are other innacuracies of fact in that piece as well.
Re: Post 4476
All named inventors were Worlds employee's. A corporation can't invent a human does that and assigns rights to the company.
If you review the patent file wrapper at the USPTO you will clearly see that all named inventors were under contract to Worlds.
Re Post 4447
To state that WDDD did not develop or invent the technology utilized in the Steven Spielberg Starbright World is patently false. There never was an outside developer who assigned rights to Worlds. There are Wall Street Journal and Wired Magazine articles that clearly point out Worlds as the developer.
Such a bold mistatement is easily provable and misguided at best and purposefully manipulative at worst.