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.
As of 5/18 Eyetalk365 is in court pursuing Zmodo Tech a 40 million dollar a year company ?...Judge has denied the defendants motion to dismiss.
So all along, and you can go back and look at the posts that are in the history books the REVO people were going to jail, but yet it looks like they were fined for over cooking the books and the lack of filing the reports. But what we dont see is the acronyms of the government storming the gates of REVO for all the shareholder money spent.
Eyetalk365, LLC v. August Home, Inc.
North Carolina Western District Court
Judge: Frank D Whitney
Referred: David Keesler
Case #: 3:16-cv-00722
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Oct 18, 2016
Terminated: Jun 14, 2017
MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice -- Agreed by Eyetalk365, LLC. Responses due by 6/28/2017 plus an additional 3 days if served by mail(Sorden, Gary)
Att: 1 Proposed Order
One more wanting to settle up.
Its more likely Ronald McDonald is posting here than Ronald Carter
I have social security numbers of everybody involved. I am a good loser but i wont be stolen from. To many highly notable attorneys to be involved for it to be a scam, if anything it will be a reverse to suck some of the profit margins away from shareholders.
So far they have proven to be screw ups not thieves.
It is 60/40 agreement. Eyetalk is a non reporting company. Revo is a reporting company. If and when that money is transfered to Revo as the agreement is written, we are going to be in the dark. The possibility would be to look at the filings with the agreed on infringers and see if you can track royalty payments.
Nobody is claiming poor me, poor little ole me I cant sell. Nobody, Everybody has made the choice to hold, certainly nobody is selling based on your input.
If the license and royalty deals are being made public and to the SCE then the money trail cant be to far behind. Monthly, Quarterly?
Bird Home Automation vs Eyetalk365 tried to get a dismissal the judge said no, ruling in favor of Eyetalk365
The website was not real, how could a website that does not exist be a gesture to its shareholders, one good reason why REVO would ever have a website.
The deal is 60-40. Thats it.
REVO did not announce the website. It is a fake website REVO does not need a website. Somebody just trying to break the spirit of shareholders. Pull the curtain of that website back.
Poorly run company or were they just a broke company. Two things, were betting on the patents in a worldwide industry with an estimated value of that industry at 14-16 billion the second thing would be they didnt stick us with eight billion shares.
The pathetic management style they operated under before the NDA's they operate under now distort the real facts of what is happening now. We know what happened then, and it doesn't help the now.
Hurry up and wait
The money from licensed partners is in a trust with Eyetalk365, if any money whatsoever exchanges hands with REVO they have to report. Reporting the infringement settlements will hinder negotiations with other infringers and show to many cards if there is a sale of the patents.
Hang On
the 'market" shakes its head at the attention a dead stock on the grey market such as REVO has accumulated.
Ron has had enough of the SEC...breaking disclosure rules is probably the last thing he wants to do.
Did you ever stop to think the " link " for the website was fake before it was made public. REVO doesnt need a website think about it!
Eyetalk365...not REVO is handling the licensing and infringement cases...not REVO...REVO had something to report and reported it...Carter is out...Ali is in
License agreements with royalties are negotiated everyday, but never in the broad of daylight, if there really are over 100 infringers the financial details of these deals would never be made public, and the agreements and the "trust account" will all add up on the day of wreckening, maybe you would like to call the attorneys and the judges of record and challenge the ehtics and honesty promises they have made to there chosen profession. Maybe the chosen one who dropped a dime allegedly to the SEC would like to make the same call to IRS.
The fact that Eyetalk365 has legal representation in the courts strongly defending patent rights and signing infringers and non infringers suggests no proof of fraud, a 15 day suspension thats it, a case of fraud by the SEC would have brought much more than that. Did the SEC announce penalties other than the 15 day suspension or a fine, NO they did not. Certainly fraud would have brought more than that. Would all stockholders that have had fraud committed against them by REVO please stand up.
The details of this story are on the way, anybody who suggests different is not telling the truth.
and the 7 confirmed license and royalty deals, and the 7 other eyetalk365 vs lawsuits.
12/29/2016 Gary R. Sorden and Kirk Alan Parry Jr. and Michelle Merck Walker and Tim Craddock representing Eyetalk 365, LLC (Plaintiff)
G. Kirkland Hardymon and Tory Ian Summey representing Bird Home Automation, LLC (Defendant)
Hearing in CHARLOTTE Courtroom 1-1
**** Markman Hearing ***
A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".[1]
Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.[3]
Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection.[4]
Your welcome
Eyetalk365 and August were in court on 12/20/2016
Eyetalk365 and Bird were in court on 12/21/2016
The fact of the matter is the SEC can hinder the trading of REVO, but it cannot hinder the ability to sign license agreements and boost value of the patents as the deals are signed.
By using NDA's on all license deals and not exposing the value of those agreements EYETALK365REVO is in charge. They don't want to be traded or manipulated.
We are here now, gotta respect the strategy. Like it or not REVO and EYETALK365 are in control.
They are not trying to operate as a business, they have assigned the patents to a third for the sole purpose of licensing deals or a purchase of the patents.
If this was baseball that would be a swing and a miss...the patents, the licensing agreements and the money in the trust account far exceeds any nightmare of somebody thinking of liquidation.
Not one case has been abandoned.
Eyetalk365 is filing against infringers every month. Crooks hardly, keep up with the facts and stop with the hyperbole. The attorney they are using is a recognized USPTO attorney.
Google keeps them all on file under...eyetalk 365 settles with and plug in each of the four infringers
Yes, they settled and are under licensing agreements. There are publicly delivered PRs that support this as news.
Eyetalk365 vs Olive and Dove filed 11/15/2016
EYETALK365 vs Zimodo Technology filed on 11/14/2016
REVO and Home Automation in court today. Home Automation making its plea.
All the money is sitting in trust and will go to the buyer of the patents. One of our partners who signed a deal and is mentioned in the Skybell Docs is also a partner of Comcast.
The lawsuits have been settlements out of court and have turned into license agreements.
The Skygoof Lawsuit mentions 3 infringers who signed license agreements rather than go to court to find the infringement responsibility ruling in Eyetalks favor.
All infringer money is sitting in a trust account.
Patenets are being sold to the highest bidder.
Eyetalk back in court with skybell 10/3/2016
4. Eyetalk’s patent portfolio is seminal intellectual property in the field of entryway
management including inventions related to video doorbell technology. Some of the largest
Case 3:16-cv-00702 Document 1 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 10
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page 2 of 10
companies in the entryway management industry have taken licenses to Eyetalk’s patent
portfolio without litigation. Eyetalk’s notable licensees include The Chamberlain Group, Inc.,
HeathCo, LLC, and Bot Home Automation, Inc.—makers of the “Ring” video doorbell. These
companies and Eyetalk worked together to license Eyetalk’s portfolio without the need for
wasteful litigation. These companies should be commended for appreciating the patent rights of
others and licensing the Eyetalk patent portfolio in order to ensure a freedom to operate in the
space. Thus, there is no doubt that Eyetalk’s patent portfolio includes pioneering inventions
related to the entryway management industry. Upon information and belief, the Defendant in this
matter has adopted an approach known as “efficient infringement” whereby—despite its own
patents citing to Eyetalk’s patent portfolio over 40 times and its undisputed knowledge of the
patent-in-suit—Defendant would rather keep infringing the seminal intellectual property owned
by Eyetalk without taking a license and force Eyetalk to bring this case to the Court. Thus,
despite the largest companies in the industry taking a license to Eyetalk’s portfolio and
Defendant’s precise knowledge of Eyetalk’s patent portfolio, Defendant has decided to adopt an
approach that completely ignores Eyetalk’s intellectual property rights. These These companies should be commended for appreciating the patent rights of
others and licensing the Eyetalk patent portfolio in order to ensure a freedom to operate in the
space. Thus, there is no doubt that Eyetalk’s patent portfolio includes pioneering inventions
related to the entryway management industry. Upon information and belief, the Defendant in this
matter has adopted an approach known as “efficient infringement” whereby—despite its own
patents citing to Eyetalk’s patent portfolio over 40 times and its undisputed knowledge of the
patent-in-suit—Defendant would rather keep infringing the seminal intellectual property owned
by Eyetalk without taking a license and force Eyetalk to bring this case to the Court. Thus,
despite the largest companies in the industry taking a license to Eyetalk’s portfolio and
Defendant’s precise knowledge of Eyetalk’s patent portfolio, Defendant has decided to adopt an
approach that completely ignores Eyetalk’s intellectual property rights. These actions will no
These companies should be commended for appreciating the patent rights of
others and licensing the Eyetalk patent portfolio in order to ensure a freedom to operate in the
space. Thus, there is no doubt that Eyetalk’s patent portfolio includes pioneering inventions
related to the entryway management industry. Upon information and belief, the Defendant in this
matter has adopted an approach known as “efficient infringement” whereby—despite its own
patents citing to Eyetalk’s patent portfolio over 40 times and its undisputed knowledge of the
patent-in-suit—Defendant would rather keep infringing the seminal intellectual property owned
by Eyetalk without taking a license and force Eyetalk to bring this case to the Court. Thus,
despite the largest companies in the industry taking a license to Eyetalk’s portfolio and
Defendant’s precise knowledge of Eyetalk’s patent portfolio, Defendant has decided to adopt an
approach that completely ignores Eyetalk’s intellectual property rights. These actions will no These companies should be commended for appreciating the patent rights of
others and licensing the Eyetalk patent portfolio in order to ensure a freedom to operate in the
space. Thus, there is no doubt that Eyetalk’s patent portfolio includes pioneering inventions
related to the entryway management industry. Upon information and belief, the Defendant in this
matter has adopted an approach known as “efficient infringement” whereby—despite its own
patents citing to Eyetalk’s patent portfolio over 40 times and its undisputed knowledge of the
patent-in-suit—Defendant would rather keep infringing the seminal intellectual property owned
by Eyetalk without taking a license and force Eyetalk to bring this case to the Court. Thus,
despite the largest companies in the industry taking a license to Eyetalk’s portfolio and
Defendant’s precise knowledge of Eyetalk’s patent portfolio, Defendant has decided to adopt an
approach that completely ignores Eyetalk’s intellectual property rights. These actions will no
Last month Eyetalk took the money.