Buy PM's
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.
Time to start Buying Physical JD Arizona & Idaho Pass Bills To Remove “Capital Gains Taxes”
IT BEGINS…. Idaho & Arizona Pass Bills To Remove “Capital Gains Taxes” On Gold & Silver Posted by SRSrocco in News, Precious Metals on March 15, 2017
https://srsroccoreport.com/it-begins-idaho-arizona-pass-bills-to-remove-capital-gains-on-gold-silver/
Time for SFOR Management to dawn the Black Suits and Shades..
After all their Technology is the Best Kept Secret on the Planet.
StrikeForce's IP is the World's First, Last and Only Viable Line of Defence in 2017.
Saving the Planet with Cyber Security Technology, as who knows what Aliens are Still Lurking out there,
INTEL - " MultiFactor Authentication is becoming a New Industry Standard. "
__________________
Re: Big Boy Pants - Seems SFOR has one Leg in already inserted, We know what's happening with ACS and McAffee's XDL.
Looks like they are Levis 501 Jeans, can't wait as Each Button (PR) is Buttoned as SFOR Buttons up and Fly's.
Does the other Pant Leg Contain.. ?
Yet to be seen, is who's Technology is behind Intel's H/W Multifactor Authenticaton in the New 7th Generation Microprocessors.
Re: Delayed News
Read the post he was replying to also.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129425245
Correct New it was said to be delayed a couple of Days.
That's why.......
Do you trust your Technology ?
Maybe SFOR could help us out here ?
https://mobile.twitter.com/localbusinessco/status/839456634745176064/video/1
I have been Hijacked ! Ever the inqusitve one, I was out doing DD this evening and found my First StrikeForce Video on WN.com while doing a search on StrikeForce,
Now I know where the extra views are coming from. It was sent to Kay with a reply, and the early views were running higher than normal board traffic. But here I find it on WN along with Kay interviews .
https://wn.com/strikeforce_technologies_
ROCK OUT JD !
The song hit our Senior Classs of 1971 like a Cat. 5 Hurricane when it debuted in 1972. SCHOOLS OUT FOREVER !
Surf and Sex and Lots of Fun, We're the Class of '71 !
Those were the Days My Friend, We Thought They'd Never End, We'd Sing and Dance Forever and a Day, We'd Live the Life We Choose, We'd Fight and Never Lose, For We Were Young and Sure to Have Our Way ...
A Tribute to a Great Artist
Love this Version where he changes up the Lyrics
Eureka !
You caught one JD, Good Catch.
I acutely Cal that Brakeout early last week with my proprietary charting software, Charts at the Bottom
ELKO, NEVADA — The only thing that McEwen Mining’s (TSX: MUX; NYSE: MUX) Simon Quick, vice-president of projects, thinks could delay construction at the company’s Gold Bar project, 53 km from Elko, Nev., is whether a Trump-led U.S. administration would lift the Obama moratorium on federal coal leases early next year.
“The war on coal is effectively going to end, and there are mountains of projects that will look for approvals from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), so a potential concern is simply a backlog of coal projects taking precedence over other mining projects,” Quick tells The Northern Miner during a presentation at the company’s office branch in Elko.
McEwen aims to restart operations at the former open-pit gold mine by 2018.
Based on an updated feasibility study published in 2015, the 7,300-tonne-per-day, heap-leach operation could produce 65,000 oz. gold per year, at cash costs of US$728 per oz. gold over a five-year mine life.
Quick says if it all goes according to plan, the US$60.5-million project would deliver a 20% after-tax internal rate of return (IRR) and a net present value (NPV) — at 5% discount rate — of US$30 million, assuming US$1,150 per oz. gold.
“The sensitivity to the gold price is pretty good. For every US$100 move either way, the IRR would move 10%,” he says. “The break-even point, without having to do a full redesign, is US$975, so it holds up well to any gold price fluctuations.”
To keep the project on schedule, McEwen must publish a draft environmental impact study (EIS) in the Federal Register and gain BLM approval by the second half of 2017, which Quick explains as being no easy task in Nevada.
“The issue with the BLM is getting it through the Notice of Availability (NOA) and published in the Federal Register. By comparison, a full EIS is 2,000 pages, whereas an NOA, which can delay a project, is five pages and lacks an incredible amount of meat of what the project is about. It sits on 27 desks as it goes through Washington for sign off, and then it’s put in the Register,” Quick says
He adds that the company is engaging local, state and federal officials to “humanize the project as much as possible,” in an effort to speed up approval.
“The major competitive advantage this project, from a permitting perspective, is that it’s unencumbered by local issues. We don’t have water rights — there are no water issues or enormous autoclaves. So we’re asking the government to get behind a project that will add jobs, increase the tax base, and is a net benefit from a reclamation perspective.
Sitting at the boardroom table is the rest of the Gold Bar team, including Bruce Burke, director of operations and logistics, and Jeff Snyder, director of U.S. technical services.
How McEwen plans to recover the gold is a big point of discussion among the team. Snyder is leading the conversation, given he has a 33-year background in oxide and refractory gold-ore processing.
He says that one of the biggest challenges gold miners in Nevada face with Carlin-style deposits is the amount of clay associated with the ore.
Carlin-style deposits form when mineralizing fluids, moving through fractures and faults, intercept a highly permeable, clay- and silt-rich carbonate rock. The fluids dissolve the carbonate, leaving the clay, silt and gold behind.
This mineralization becomes obvious while picking through the reverse-circulation chip samples that are sitting on the boardroom table. The ore zones are completely cryptic, appearing more like dull road gravel with intervals of red-brown clay, while boasting intercepts of 5 metres at 8.9 grams gold per tonne.
Snyder says that column tests on bulk samples from Gold Bar suggest gold recoveries of between 88% and 92%, which he calls “remarkable” for a deposit of this style. For the project’s feasibility study, the company took a conservative approach, and went with 78% recovery.
“The unique thing about the project is its leach kinetics. Gold Bar is a high-recovery asset. There’s 50% gold recovery in the first 45 days, so it leaches really quick. In the report we added some conservatism, so if we increase that recovery it will really add to the bottom line,” he says.
The other concern with Carlin-style deposits, he says, is whether the gold is trapped in carbonaceous, refractory material, which often forces miners to use complex and expensive milling techniques, such as roasters or autoclaves.
For Gold Bar, Snyder says that carbonaceous ore is found in the un-oxidized part of the deposit. Since mining would focus on the oxidized zones, any carbonaceous material found will be treated as waste.
Snyder estimates that 8% of the resource contains carbon-bearing ore.
“We’ll have a two-step ore-control process — ore-control the face and visually inspect the stockpile — because you can clearly see it and prevent it from getting onto the leach pad,” he says.
McEwen is also looking to add a crushing and agglomeration circuit to the processing flow sheet, which mixes the gold-bearing clays with cement and is crushed and sprinkled onto the heap-leach pad to enhance the leach pad’s permeability.
Snyder says the method is more expensive, but adds “a lot more security to the project,” because “at the end of the day, recovery will make this project successful.”
He says that a crusher and agglomerator would increase the capital cost of the project to US$80 million, but increase recovery to 82%, lengthen the mine life to seven years and bump up the NPV to US$48 million, while keeping a 20% IRR.
Quick uses Midway Gold’s Pan gold project, 35 km west of Eureka, as an example of how high clay or carbonaceous content can impact recoveries. The beleaguered miner saw its first gold pour at Pan in March 2015, and expected the operation would produce 81,000 oz. gold annually over its nine-year mine life. Faced with falling recoveries, the company filed for bankruptcy three months later.
“Recovery was a hot topic for them, but the two things they didn’t do was incorporate a crusher and agglomerator into their processing. They also never had their plant ready when the mining fleet were active, so they pushed stacking to 50-foot lifts, which made the clay situation even worse. But now, after coming out of bankruptcy, they’re installing a crusher and an agglomerator to get the operation up and running again. We’ve made the right choice,” Quick says.
The sagebrush and pinyon-juniper forest on the gravel road to Gold Bar is dusted with fresh-fallen snow, and the former open-pit mining operation looms on the horizon.
Two of the three main deposits at Gold Bar — Gold Pick and Gold Ridge — were mined between 1986 and 1994 by Atlas Precious Metals, resulting in 206,187 oz. gold production from 2.1 million tonnes averaging 2.5 grams gold per tonne at an 88.4% recovery.
Mineralization at Gold Pick has a strike length of over 1.2 km, a width of 500 metres and thickness between 30 and 15 metres, whereas Gold Ridge and Cabin Creek are satellite deposits that make up 22% of the resource.
Combined, the deposits have open-pittable measured and indicated resources of 20 million tonnes of 0.96 gram per tonne for 611,000 oz. gold, and 4.2 million tonnes of 0.82 gram per tonne for 111,000 oz. gold, assuming US$1,350 per oz. gold, 78% recovery and 0.3 gram gold cut-off.
The deposits occur within 150 metres of surface in oxidized and orange-coloured carbonate rocks, which appear along the pit walls. Dark black spots signalling carbonaceous rocks occur in rare patches across the benches.
“Cabin Creek will be mined in the first couple of years. It’s the smallest resource we have, but it’s easily accessible,” Quick says as we stand around the back of a pick-up truck near the Gold Pick pit.
McEwen plans to spend US$1.6 million next year at Gold Bar as mine permitting and engineering continue, but Quick mentions that near-mine exploration will be placed on the back burner. The company spent US$1.5 million for almost 5,000 metres of drilling this year.
“We’re fairly capital constrained as we get into the build scenario, so we’re going to focus on finishing the engineering and ensure long-lead items are complete before we get into more exploration,” he says. “It’s better bang for our buck to wait for the mining permit and explore things that are immediately accretive, rather than spending money on deposits that would only come in much later in the mine life.”
It would be nice if The Next PR were to say SFOR has one Settlement so far DUO and StrikeForce has initiated four more Patent Infringement Lawsuits against ? ? ? ?
I Can Almost Hear the Sonic Booms Now, if that Happens
How we here on the Space Coast Knew the Space Shuttle was Home Safe and Sound. Be it 2am or Noon, we always knew.
What can I say ? Leonardo never stops clapping.
I must say that is the most unusual compliments I ever Revived!
I believe some thought went into that one.
Hey I was just having some fun, I would have never imagined that ovation when I was working on that creation.
Thank You Cyber !
Perhaps you can help.......
You know I can't figure out if this is a hint or not.
Sometimes Sunshine Produces Good Things
I wonder if the pesticides go away when left in the Sun ?
Summers are Brutal, but it's a Dry Heat, at least that's what they tell me in Vegas....and MUX will hit $10 in April...
Although things are looking up..
It's still absolutely Fantasic here on the Space Coast. Still!
But it's coming..
MT Trouble Desk is very efficient and quick to respond even in the middle of the night to a Trouble Ticket.
I will say that having Maintained Main Frame Computers since 1977 and everything down the Line. There's nothing like closing all applications and doing a power down and restart. And then seeing if the Problem is resolved.
Mobile Devices come with their own set of Problems, the main one being
Something SFOR has Plenty of..... Internal RAM.
Alot of things are caused by this.
Just because one has installed a 64GB Sim Card in the device does not cure the Ram problem with the Internal ram being bogged down by to many Apps installed that are loaded in Ram.
Even if one has moved the Program to the Sim card, that is not where it is loaded when using iit. Is is loaded in Internal Ram.
After a while it's just like someone adding small amounts of weight to your chest, at some Point you are no longer able to standup.
I would suggest if you have any problems to install a free App "All in One Tool Box.
You can clear up RAM Space and then try the same thing again that was having a problem and see if it operates Properly if so your internal Ram is overloaded.
It also has tool to allow you to not load certain Apps. But many may start up again without even launching them.
Another more common way is to go to settings and then Storage and see how much ram internal ram is free.
Moral of the story, don't aways think it the Program or App causing the Problem.
Although this may not be your problem, it may help others who stumble upon this post.
Wolfe - Due to
Major Deals being in the hands of Ch. Partners, Court Proceedings Speed in the hands of the Attorneys and Court Schedule, Financials still in the hands of the Auditors, PR's are on Hold.
Best Buy Announcement was announced via Social Media, as it was not Authorized as a PR by BestBuy.
Annoncement on New Lawsuits and additional Lawfirm due at anytime now.
Although if you were to read the DD on the Board, it's chock-full of information that's going on Behind the Scenes with Deals that are going on with Major Companies and Major Resellers, and just what SFOR has "possibly" gotten itself into.
Nothing to much happened with Microsoft beyond the Settlement money, but what's going on currently makes anything that might happened with MSFT look like Tinker Toys, IMO.
I like the fact there are No Fluff PR's, as Pinks are famous for.
Reading the board may even tell you when to expect the Next PR.
If your way behind this Video may help. Not quite up to date, with the latest uncovered, but should suffice for now.
Just be patient the Singtel Dragon Stuff Flys a away in a Minute..
Hope the post helps.
49'er
joebro - Android User Here
I have no problem on my Samsung Galaxy Tab T800 or my Samsung Galaxy SM-G900V. Using the Mobile Trust Keyboard to write this Post.
SFOR Looks Good which ever Keyboard I Use..!
Re: "awaiting their curtain call! SFOR is strong!"
LOL! Looks like even Kermit agrees it should be easy for SFOR to close green on Friday, and everyday between now and then would also be sweet! :)
If news hits this week, it should do so without any problem!!!
We are on the cusp of strong upward momentum, as SFOR's efforts are slowly revealed! So many catalysts awaiting their curtain call! SFOR is strong!
GO SFOR!!!
Re: "big green Shamrock close on Friday!"
Nice pep talk Gold49er! It seems as though it gave us a quick spark as we've jumped to .009!!! Hopefully this momentum will continue throughout the afternoon, closing nice & green today! After all - St Patrick's Day is Friday, and so we want to try on a lot of green as we get ready for the holiday and a big green Shamrock close on Friday!
It would seem from reading here this morning
That the place may become a Hall of Echos of X/S & X/O.
I truely hope that does not to happen, as so much is learned from the DD produced here along with cordial opinions and commentary that we all gain from.
The lack of Presence of ZPAUL has left a Void of Encouragment in Factual DD, and I'm sure we All Feel the Loss and Wish Z All the Best in a Speedy Recovery and hope he's getting all the Support Required from Family, Friends and our Prayers.
We are all free to speak our views within Limits. And hopefully some of the rhetoric will be toned down after the comments I read this morning. Even if evidence of which may not be self-evident.
But enough was heard to make the point and lies within a database that maybe the Point was Heard Loud and Clear.
I hope all will temper their posts with more camaraderie and make the Place a more harmonious place to Share our Positive and Negative thoughts, if there are really in the later left with the New StrikeForce ERA that comes with Increased Sales and Distribution, Major Deals being Forged, and what appears to be encouraging Litigation Success and New Patent Infringment Lawuits to be Announced.
Whether one might own a few shares or millions, for the most part we all want to see SFOR to succeed as a StrikeForce to be reckoned with as it's Patents and Technology are making Deep End-road's in the Very Hot Cyber Security Market and Major Companies involved.
I would personally like to thank all those who Post DD and to those that can just afford the time to make healthy comments and give those who do research, ideas on digging deeper on that subject or spark another Idea to reseach which brings forth new information not yet discussed.
There exists a vast array of things all intertwined with SFOR and it's Progress, since it's coming out Party with the Microsoft Settlement and the Spotlight that is being shined brightly on Cyber Security, and that the things uncovered almost on a continuous daily/weekly basis, that the enticing and exciting information never seems to stop.
It's almost unbelievable that so much can be uncovered even though we may not see it as of yet in Press Releases the timing of which are out of the Mark Kay & SFOR hands.
Thanks to all that have helped in making all that possible.
Gold 49'er
A WAKEUP CALL for sure!
Ref: "This one basket of strawberries contained 20 different pesticides"
To many Favorable Points in StrikeForce's Favor to Hightlight
FW: Could you provide an overview of intellectual property (IP) related disputes in today’s market? Are you seeing an increase, and what are some of the common causes?
Vander Veen: One active and growing area of intellectual property disputes is the determination of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rates for standard essential patents (SEPs). Standard essential patents describe technology which has been declared essential to comply with technical standards, such as wireless communication standards such as 2G, 3G, 4G/LTE cellular standards, WiFi standards or audio and video compression standards. The scope of this area of disputes is massive. For example, within the wireless communications standards alone, there are tens of thousands of patents which have been declared essential to standards by dozens of entities. On the other side, every smartphone, tablet and electronic device incorporating wireless communications requires rights to use these patents.
Paul: Today’s intellectual property (IP) disputes involve all of the various rights that exist and are receiving considerable attention in the media and in appellate courts. Patent disputes and the activities of patent assertion entities continue despite changes in the law that increase the burden of proving liability, the scrutiny of expert reports and damages, the difficulty in sustaining higher damage awards, and the likelihood of losing a patent in validity challenges at the US Patent and Trademark Office. Disputes regarding design patents have grabbed the attention of the public, and the dispute between Apple and Samsung is now before the US Supreme Court to determine whether an award of infringer’s profits should be limited to those profits attributable to the infringing component. Copyright is before the US Supreme Court in a dispute between Star Athletica and Varsity Brands to determine whether copyright protection is available for cheerleading uniforms with design features such as stripes and chevrons. The enactment of a recent federal law on trade secret protection also signals increasing interest for protecting and asserting these rights.
Johnson: The number of patent litigations filed has continued to decline since its peak in 2013, although the rate of decline seems to have slowed. This decline could be attributed to a number of factors, but the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank is certainly an important one. The Alice decision, which addressed what constitutes an unpatentable abstract idea in the context of software-related inventions, made it more challenging for plaintiffs to successfully assert software patents. By contrast, I think the general expectation is that trade secret litigations will be on the rise, particularly given the passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in 2016, which provides a federal cause of action for trade secret cases.
Gerardi: We continue to see an increase in trade secret litigation and even more arbitrations given changes to US patent laws and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), which was recently signed into law. The Supreme Court has ruled on several patent-related matters, such as Alice Corp vs. CLS Bank, Octane Fitness vs. Icon Health & Fitness and Limelight vs. Akamai, which have impacted the level of patent litigation. Further, the America Invents Act, which was signed into law in September 2011, provides for tougher patent review proceedings. These changes to patent law have made it more difficult to enforce patents. The value of intellectual property, however, continues to increase and we see more clients actively debating whether to try to protect their IP through patents, or whether they should keep the information secret and protect it under trade secrets law. The passage of the DTSA will reinforce the inclination to keep some IP as a trade secret. Clients’ desire for secrecy is also why we are seeing an increase in the number of private arbitrations, which can be kept out of the public eye, compared to litigation, in a public forum.
“As technology grows more complex, ensuring that the damages sought bear a sufficient connection to the infringing technology, or misappropriated information, becomes more complicated.”
— Marti A. Johnson
FW: When an IP-related dispute arises, what key factors need to be considered when valuing these intangible assets and calculating related damages?
Paul: Key factors to be considered when valuing intangible assets and calculating related damages include: the value of comparable assets in other transactions; changes in the marketplace since those transactions that would affect that value, for example changes in supply and demand, as well as market shifts and any new competing technologies; the relative value of the protected feature relative to other features; the current views of the courts and the patent offices in determining whether such assets are eligible for protection, are sufficiently inventive to be patentable, whether injunctive relief is available, and the evidence required for proving damages; expectations of the parties and terms of agreements when licences or contracts are involved; and the likelihood and cost of litigation.
Johnson: In patent and trade secrets cases, apportionment must be considered carefully when calculating damages. As technology grows more complex, ensuring that the damages sought bear a sufficient connection to the infringing technology, or misappropriated information, becomes more complicated. Often, an IP dispute centres on but one portion of a larger, more complicated item or process. In patent cases, where a reasonable royalty is a common measure of damages, this means that the choice of an appropriate royalty base is critical. Even if a very small royalty rate could, theoretically, offset a large royalty base, the Federal Circuit has made clear that the royalty base itself must be appropriately tailored to the accused technology. Approaches to apportioning the value of accused technology within a larger product vary and can consider such things as the relative cost of the component feature or customer surveys about the value of different product features. Care must be taken, however, because courts have often taken a critical eye to the objective support underlying any given approach.
Gerardi: A number of key factors need to be considered at the onset of a case. First, the facts and circumstances that impact the type of damages that may be claimed – for example, can the patentee meet the burden necessary to establish lost profits or is a reasonable royalty calculation more appropriate? Second, the value of the patented feature relative to non-patented features – for example, is the patented feature one of many non-infringing features contained in an infringing product? Does the patented feature drive demand for the infringing product? What evidence has been produced to support such a claim? Third, how can a damages expert credibly support a reasonable royalty rate – for example, are there prior licence agreements for the patents-in-suit or comparable technology? Does either party have a standard licensing policy? Each of these factors can have a significant impact on the type and magnitude of damages appropriately claimed.
Vander Veen: The key factor in determining the value of intangible assets is calculating the economic value of the technology or patent separate from any other technologies or value-generating components in the product incorporating the intangible asset at issue. For example, a smartphone can practice several thousand patents. The patents declared essential to 4G/LTE cellular standards alone number in the tens of thousands. Thus, determining the value of the intellectual property asset requires determining the portion of the value of a product generated by the intellectual property at issue alone. Apportioning the value to the patented technology is further complicated in the case of standard essential patents because a FRAND rate should reflect the incremental value of the technology separate from any value associated with the incorporation of the patented technology into the standard.
“There have been a number of high-profile decisions that demonstrate the continuing need for an economic expert to tie a damages calculation to the value of the patented feature and to the facts and circumstances.”
— Christopher P. Gerardi
FW: Have any recent, high-profile IP disputes grabbed your attention in so far as they demonstrate the difficulties involved in assessing IP value and calculating damages? What lessons can we draw from the resolution of such cases and their impact on the IP landscape?
Johnson: This year the Supreme Court decided Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, loosening the framework for awarding enhanced damages in a patent case. The Court rejected the prior test, which allowed enhanced damages for wilful infringement only where it had been shown by clear and convincing evidence that there was an objectively high likelihood that defendant’s acts were infringing and where the defendant knew or should have known of the risk. This was considered a difficult test to meet because it required that defendant’s non-infringement and invalidity defences be ‘objectively baseless’. The Supreme Court rejected this approach as overly rigid and further held that wilfulness should be decided based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, not the heightened clear and convincing standard applied previously. This has opened up the possibility that enhanced damages will be more readily obtainable, which will significantly impact valuation of potential damages in patent cases going forward.
Gerardi: There have been a number of high-profile decisions that demonstrate the continuing need for an economic expert to tie a damages calculation to the value of the patented feature and to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. For example, the Federal Circuit’s decision in VirnetX, Inc., v. Cisco Systems, Inc. provided additional guidance regarding the calculation of reasonable royalty damages based on the smallest salable patent practicing unit (SSPPU) and the need to further apportion when the SSPPU contains multiple non-infringing features. Additionally, in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., the Federal Circuit found the 25 percent rule of thumb to be inadmissible, as it did not tie the reasonable royalty rate to the particular facts of the case. These decisions continue to highlight the need for economic experts to provide a refined and well-supported calculation that meets the enhanced requirements of the courts.
Vander Veen: One significant matter is a 2015 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Commonwealth Scienti?c and Industrial Research Organization v. Cisco Systems, Inc. This case highlights that damages must be based on the incremental value of the patented technology separate from other drivers of value in the products incorporating the patented technology. The Federal Circuit indicated that the value of the patented technology must be apportioned from the value of standardisation. This is consistent with the fundamental principal that damages for patent infringement must be based on the value of the patented technology and not on the value of the unpatented features. The Federal Circuit also stated that one method to apportion value to the subject patents is to evaluate the value of the SSPPU within the product.
Paul: Cases in recent years that have addressed apportionment of damages have grabbed my attention, including Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., VirnetX, Inc v. Cisco Systems, Inc., and ResQNet, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc. Apportioning damages to reflect the value attributable to the patented features contained in the accused product and excluding value attributable to unpatented features can depend on the subjective perspective and experience and relative priorities of the various entities involved: the patent owner, the implementer, the consumer and the government.
FW: In your experience, what benefits can expert witnesses bring to case analysis, including initial calculations of IP value and damages? Indeed, how might the appointment of an expert witness impact the damages ultimately awarded?
Paul: Expert witnesses bring the experience they have collected through valuing intangible assets, as well as the insight gained from working with many rights holders and implementers in various industries and in various contexts and situations, that a party would not otherwise have. They also give a perspective on how rights holders and implementers assess value, initial calculations of IP value and damages to set the expectations of the parties, factual support for negotiations to resolve disputes, and reports and testimony in litigation to support a party’s position and critique the position of opposing parties.
Vander Veen: Expert witness analysis and testimony is essential for a dispute which is litigated at trial. However, economic expert analysis can be extremely valuable well before any litigation dispute begins. For example, in the context of FRAND disputes, a licensor or licensee often needs to establish that the licensor had been offering royalty rates to the licensee which are fair and reasonable. An economic expert can be engaged before a licensor or licensee makes royalty rate offers to a potential licensee to provide advice on the ‘offer rates’. The expert can also provide an opinion as to whether these rates are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. In the event any subsequent litigation occurs, it can be valuable to be able show that an independent third party had evaluated the offer rates and determined the offers to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Gerardi: Retaining a damages expert can be extraordinarily beneficial to clients on both a short- and long-term basis. Initially, economic experts can provide an early case damages assessment. This analysis can give clients a sense of the magnitude of potential damages and the discovery necessary to support a given claim. Further, an economic expert can assist in formulating document requests, interrogatories and deposition questions regarding financial, industry and technical information potentially relevant to a damages calculation. Experienced damages experts also stay up-to-date on the ever-changing body of case law affecting damages calculations. Ultimately, in the face of mounting challenges to such calculations, retaining a damages expert can lead to a more refined and defensible analysis.
Johnson: In my view, damages experts in particular should be brought on to a case as early as possible. An expert’s initial analysis of potential damages can provide valuable insight that will allow a company to take a more reasoned approach to determining settlement value and the potential for early resolution of a case. Moreover, an expert’s early involvement can make for a more efficient litigation, allowing counsel to tailor damages-related discovery to the particular information that will be needed for the expert’s analysis. Any streamlining of discovery always provides for a more cost-effective and efficient litigation. The choice of a damages expert is particularly key in trade secrets cases, where the law on what constitutes an acceptable measure of recovery is less settled than in patent cases. There are many approaches to valuing damages in trade secrets cases, and it is incredibly important to find an expert who will have the flexibility and creativity to find the most appropriate and economically sound way to calculate such damages given the facts of the case.
“The outlook for IP disputes in our increasingly global business world continues to evolve based on the availability of courts and other dispute resolution organisations in various countries.”
— John Paul
FW: How is the issue of apportionment of damages generally handled during an IP dispute? Do limitation periods exist which could impact the decision-making process around calculating IP value and damages?
Vander Veen: Apportionment is the central issue in IP disputes and US courts are acutely focused on ensuring that damages are properly apportioned to the patented technology. However, apportionment is frequently a very complex issue and involves extensive expert analysis. For example, one method to apportion the value of a product to a patent is to survey users of the products incorporating the patent in order to evaluate how consumers value the patented feature in the product. A scientifically valid survey is developed and fielded to specifically assess the value of the patented features of the product. Other methods involve assessing the value of the SSPPU within the product.
Gerardi: From a patent perspective, the issue of apportionment is often of paramount importance in a damages calculation. Notably, courts require damages experts to isolate the value of the patented features, as distinct from non-infringing features, or, alternatively, to prove that the patented feature drives demand of the infringing product, known as the Entire Market Value Rule (EMVR). In my experience, establishing the credibility of the EMVR in a particular situation is not an easy feat. I anticipate that courts will continue to offer guidance on use of the EMVR and apportionment requirements. Further, there are various limitation periods that may impact damages. For example, a patentee can only recover damages for a period beginning six-years prior to the filing of the complaint. Alternatively, in certain instances, damages may be limited to the period in which the infringer received notice of infringement. These limitation periods can have a significant impact on the magnitude of damages.
Johnson: Apportionment is important in patent cases, but it is also critical in trade secrets cases. In cases where the misappropriated information is not embodied in an accused product, but was instead used as a stepping stone to create a different or improved product, determining the value of that stepping stone relative to the ultimate end product can be complicated. One approach is to determine the length of any head start that the defendant received by virtue of the misappropriation. In other words, damages are calculated based on the assumption that the defendant was able to launch its product sooner than it otherwise would have due to the misappropriation. The length of this head start can be calculated by considering such things as the amount of time it took the plaintiff to develop its trade secret, the defendant’s development time, or even the development time of third parties that have launched similar products. The amount to which the defendant was enriched due to this earlier entrance into the market may then inform unjust enrichment damages.
Paul: Points for dispute include defining an appropriate royalty base, whether the patented feature is the basis for customer demand for the overall product and, therefore, having the overall product as the royalty base, and what is the SSPPU and whether even that unit should be narrowed to discount for significant non-infringing features.
FW: What final piece of advice can you offer to companies in terms of assessing and quantifying the value of their IP assets in the context of an IP dispute?
Gerardi: Involve an economic expert early on, as he or she can assist in a wide range of tasks throughout the litigation lifecycle, from early case assessment to discovery to summary judgment motions. Relatedly, he or she can identify and work through potential damages ‘problem areas’ with counsel and clients sooner rather than later. Our experience clearly demonstrates that such early involvement may not only help to guide case strategy, but also save on legal and expert fees in the long-run.
Johnson: One further idea that must be borne in mind in the context of trade secret disputes is the value attributable to each individual trade secret. In cases where many trade secrets are asserted, it is not uncommon to see parties attach a single valuation to all of the asserted trade secrets. In other words, one damages number is put forward, which is inherently based on the assumption that all asserted trade secrets are misappropriated. In cases where the defendant is found to have misappropriated only a subset of the asserted trade secrets, courts have thrown out damages verdicts where the number put forward by the expert – and adopted by the jury – had been based on the valuation of all of the asserted trade secrets in combination. Companies must take care in identifying each of their trade secrets distinctly and valuing each separately.
Paul: Be informed and realistic about the value of the IP and understand that the perspective of opposing parties may honestly be different based on their experience, their subjective feelings, their business objectives and the alternatives available to them.
Vander Veen: Engage economic consultants as early as possible. Evaluating the value of IP assets or the potential exposure to IP litigation with sound analysis is essential to making informed business decisions. This is especially true in the context of standard essential patents as it is vital to be able to establish that royalty offers within the negation process have been fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.
“Evaluating the value of IP assets or the potential exposure to IP litigation with sound analysis is essential to making informed business decisions.”
— Thomas Vander Veen
FW: What do you believe is the outlook for IP disputes in our increasingly global business world? What issues do you expect to influence the calculation of IP valuations and related damages going forward?
Johnson: The enactment of the DTSA will have a significant impact on the future of intellectual property disputes, and the number of trade secrets cases will increase as a result. The Act explicitly covers trade secret misappropriation that occurs outside of the United States if the misappropriator is a US corporation or citizen or if an act in furtherance of the misappropriation occurred within the US. This is an important feature of the Act given increasing globalisation as well as concerns about cyber attacks by ‘hacktivists’ or other foreign entities. The passage of the Act will also likely lead to a more uniform body of case law governing issues like trade secrets damages, allowing companies to better predict potential damages resulting from the theft of a trade secret, which can be a useful tool in valuing a companies’ intellectual property.
Vander Veen: IP disputes are increasingly multinational and the trend is likely to continue. Patent holders are increasingly selecting among global venues to file patent infringement litigation in order to facilitate global settlement agreements. For example, patent holders file in multiple international venues, selecting particular venues in which an injunction is more likely. Moreover, the use of international arbitration to settle global patent disputes is increasing. Recently, large licensors and licensees, such as Samsung and Nokia, have turned to international arbitration venues to resolve disputes related to FRAND rates for standard essential patents.
Paul: The outlook for IP disputes in our increasingly global business world continues to evolve based on the availability of courts and other dispute resolution organisations in various countries, and the evolution of law, procedures, timing, costs and results in different countries. Germany has been an attractive forum based on timing, cost and predictability. China’s increased focus on patenting and the high number of court decisions finding for patent owners is attracting interest more recently. And the Unified Patent Court for a single European litigation system may come into being as an attractive forum in the near future in view of the recent ratification announcement by the UK. The greater scrutiny of damages and proofs of infringement in US courts and the success of validity challenges in the patent office has decreased the attractiveness of proceedings in the US for patent owners. The calculation of damages will continue to be affected by the perception of whether the litigation process is being abused by rights holders or implementers, whether the patent office is perceived as invalidating patents that should be upheld, whether the US Supreme Court will change the law created by the Federal Circuit, the perception of royalty stacking, the perception of value to the consumer, whether standards-based licensing and patent pools are viable, and whether patents are becoming less important and therefore less valuable and less asserted in rapidly moving technologies.
Gerardi: From a patent perspective, I expect the number of cases that make it to the damages phase to continue to decline given the many avenues available for settlement beforehand and the costs of the litigation lifecycle. Going forward, I expect a number of issues to continue to influence the calculation of patent damages, including: apportionment requirements; the use of acceptable licence and settlement agreements; requirements for determining FRAND royalties; and extraterritoriality. Additionally, the ability of a patentee to recover the entirety of profits from sales of infringing products in design patent matters will almost certainly make headlines in the near future, as this issue was recently argued before the Supreme Court in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. Finally, given the recent federalisation of trade secret law, I expect the courts to offer guidance on and refine the process of calculating damages in trade secret matters, as has been the case in patent matters.
Thomas Vander Veen provides expert economic analysis of intellectual property and international trade, and has served as an economic expert in US courts and international arbitration. Previously, he served as the economic adviser to the chairman of the US International Trade Commission. He teaches economics and finance at Northwestern University and earned his Ph.D. in economics from Brown University. He can be contacted on +1 (312) 637 2960 or by email: tvanderveen@epsiloneconomics.com.
John Paul has more than 30 years of experience in intellectual property licensing, litigation and prosecution. Focus areas include strategic planning, IP portfolio evaluation and development, complex transactions, due diligence investigations, and licensing and enforcement of IP portfolios to generate revenue. He leads the firm’s IP management and transaction section and is designated as a certified licensing professional (CLP). He can be contacted on +1 (202) 408 4109 or by email: john.paul@finnegan.com.
Christopher Gerardi is a senior managing director at FTI Consulting and co-leader of the Dispute Advisory Services practice. He has more than 25 years of experience assisting companies and plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel with complex economic, financial, accounting and litigation issues. As a nationally recognised consultant and expert witness, Mr Gerardi focuses on applied economic and damage analyses as they relate to intellectual property and commercial litigation matters. He can be contacted on +1 (212) 499 3638 or by email: chris.gerardi@fticonsulting.com.
Marti A. Johnson concentrates her practice on intellectual property and technology law, with a focus on patent and trade secret litigation. A member of the Skadden group recognised by The National Law Journal as one of the country’s leading IP practices in its 2013 ‘IP Hot List’, she also provides guidance to her clients on a variety of issues, including intellectual property transactions, freedom to operate determinations, electronic discovery parameters and damages evaluations. She can be contacted on +1 (212) 735 3836 or by email: marti.johnson@skadden.com.
© Financier Worldwide
A Fantasic Acoustic Guitar Version for my Cous.
Yes !
People are so funny. So let's say that there is no announcement this week, is everyone going to sell their shares? We know what is going to happen soon and the rest of this year. I'm going to continue buy impatient folks shares, just like I did Friday. How long before we will no longer be able to accumulate shares?
Right ! I got your Number
BR-549
Yeah JD, sometimes the House is Rockin.
Dile Rocking was out of sight
La lalalala la lalalala la lalalala la
La lalalala la lalalala la lalalala la
Si Senorita I'll meet you at the border
La lalalala la lalalala la lalalala la
So you don't have to dig deep to find it
I'll post it here
A Fantasic Acoustic Guitar Version.
Nicely Stated..... The one thing I do not enjoy seeing, but can sorta understand, are the posts saying how a mass of share purchases are coming this week.
When it most likely be the PR itself when released that will generate a higher increase of Daily Volume IMO, which maybe released late this week or in the very near future.
Besides some late February higher Volume days, for March the average volume is around 14M probably a boosted figure due to Fridays Vol of 21M.
There maybe a slight increase in volume due to the highlighted attention brought about by the excessive posts and controversy over if Kay should or should not be putting out information on the Up Coming PR, that pending NEWS, which can't be missed even by the casual observer.
But again, it will be the PR itself that will Boost Volume and along with it a higher PPS, if in fact the News is about new Lawsuits.
It will be the Companies on the list that will ultimately determine the amount of increase in Volume and PPS, the Bigger the Companies the more attention it will draw, that along with who the New Lawfirm is handling the New Lawsuits.
All this nonsense ??? When all someone was trying to do was let
shareholders know of in advance of an impending PR so they might be prepared to capitialize on the News ahead of time, be they a Flipper or investor wanting to take some profit to cover their initial investment with the first PR in months !
Appears to hypocracy and hypocritical IMO.
Meanwhile the Thunderbirds are still making high speed Strafing Runs directly over the house, but that noise can't compete with the Noise I hear on the topic above.
Noise - a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes disturbance.
Which No Doubt, due to the continuous and retorical posts, is it's utmost Intent.
Consider it the INTEL Business Users StrikeForce against a Hack Attack
Nothing Blurry, Email was Quite Clear to me.
Unlike that reply:
"Should be isnt clear lol ita a possibility of and timeline is postponed once again not clear !! What is wrong with this understanding lol"
That is confusing as hell. No punctuation, first sentence, it's hard to understand what is the meaning of that statement ?
Perhaps English is not his First Language, where such misuse of english would be understandable and forgiven.
Ok awas, posts were a just bit confusing and you never mentioned Lawsuits when Posting them.
So thanks for clairification, this was my thought, but was not going to give more fuel to the disbelieving crowd in arrogant responce.
All's Good
49er
_____________
Just emailed Kay and got great news. Not telling anyone because do your own DD.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129329005
News next Wednesday the rocket is getting fueled!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129406519
Just kidding guys.. so gullible
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129409022
Nothing in the email stated Lawsuit News.
Its regarding lawsuits so could be about updates in current lawsuits
Synthek, Re: News
if anything penny, you can still doubt since kay said "we will" put out pr on Wednesday.
Two things pop up out of this sentence.
1. you can hold it on kay to deliver a pr on Wednesday, and if he doesn't you can tell us that you told us so.
2. We don't know what kind of pr he's going to put out unless he really meant it has something to do with the lawsuits. To which if he does deliver then it could be good.
Either way I'm looking forward to see what kay and co. has to say.
My Mistake, for that dead link
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129425008
This Followed.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129425245