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.
What attorney fees does Worlds have to pay for? There is no work for attorneys as they are waiting for a CAFC ruling. Besides they have over $1 mil in the bank based on the last Q. I doubt that is the case, more likely Marimed early shareholders who received shares at no cost.
Privy was cited in every filing Worlds made to the PTAB. Since the PTAB denied RPI of Activision in the IPR ruling citing Activision did not control the IPR, Worlds had to reply in the appeal against the control ruling of the PTAB. The entire record of Worlds briefs clearly cite privy as the basis why the IPR should never have been granted by the PTAB.
Wrong again, the warrant holders only received their shares last week with the S1 registration. Learn to read SEC filings.
Your basic math is also wrong, the number of shares the warrant holders received is no where near the total trading volume for months. So the only people trading/ selling are on this board.
Preening peacocks that don’t fly
Oil States Ruling upholds PTAB constitutionality
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
You are wrong. Worlds101 ruling has not been issued in the Federal Court as the case was stayed pending the IPR outcome. Therefore any new 101 guidelines would effect the 101 challenge before Judge Casper.
Patience, read all my posts closely
“There are many considerations I’m sure you’re not aware of, i.e. jurisdictional analysis, potential 101 challenges in said jurisdictions, claim construction analysis on any potential target target products, damage assessments, litigation cost analysis
To name but a few. “
The why you already know, the when is only known when the public knows.
Demanding action for your timeline and Shouting in all caps, falls on deaf ears.
Keep your powder dry, all good things come to those who wait.
There are many considerations I’m sure you’re not aware of, i.e. jurisdictional analysis, potential 101 challenges in said jurisdictions, claim construction analysis on any potential target target products, damage assessments, litigation cost analysis
To name but a few.
Yes I have, 3!
Simple minds want simple answers.
Have you ever run a public company, raised money, managed a PTAB and CAFC appeal as well as initiating and running multiple patent litigations.
Either sell your shares and pick them up cheaper in the future or make a tender offer and you can run Worlds.
Read the PTAB rules and guidelines, read Worlds briefs and listen to the oral arguments then you will be enlightened by the distinction clearly outlined therein as the basis by which the CAFC, a judicial body is not bound by the PTAB, an administrative body and their clearly defined limitation and constraint to construe contract terms as a matter of law, which provides CAFC with their lawful option to vacate if they so choose.
As I have stated here before, CAFC may remand or they can vacate, no one knows but to boldly state that you are 100% certain of a remand is pure nonsense.
You are not a lawyer and are opining on a matter of law.
The evidence provided by Worlds was the contract between Activision and Bungie which has specific indemnification clauses on the clearance of IP by Bungie and Activision’s right to review and approve, which is control and influence as a privy.
The PTAB does not conduct contract terms construction, that is a Federal Court determination and as such the CAFC has full authority to vacate based upon their interpretation of that evidence in combination with the PTABs misapplication of the burden of proof to Worlds on the RPI challenge.
Listen to the oral arguments and the courts clear statement on this matter.
Pedantic? Well I will tell you that Wayne Helge who argued before the CAFC on behalf of Worlds thinks the odds of vacating the IPR rulings on the RPI issue are as good as a remand. fact!
By that same measure the CAFC could vacate the IPR’s on appeal in 3 months and Worlds would be back before Judge Casper by Sept. i haven’t seen you post that option.
Most importantly it’s a Susman win
How good is Susman Godfrey and Worlds lead litigator Max Tribble?
Susman Godfrey Wins $706.2 Million Jury Verdict for Client HouseCanary against Quicken Loans Affiliate Title Source Inc. | Business Wire
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180315006015/en/Susman-Godfrey-Wins-706.2-Million-Jury-Verdict
Assuming what you’ve read here is correct, which it isn’t.
First Worlds did appeal the RPI issue just not on all 6 IPR’s only on 3 and the appeals were consolidated for all 6 IPR’s. Why?, some ask. Obviously as Justice Taranto pointed out, would Worlds appeal IPR’s with claims they won and risk losing them on appeal, that would be stupid. Since the same issue of the RPI issue as raised in all 6 IPR’s Worlds appealed on the 3 that claims were invalidated but applied to have the appeal granted on all 6 iPR RPI challenges.
Second, the CAFC can vacate a PTAB ruling and it would be based on improper application of PTAB procedure depriving Worlds of due process. The evidence is more then the Activision/Bungie contract found on the internet. It is also correspondence between Activision’s lawyers and Susman inquiring if the Bungie game Destiny would be named in the lawsuit as well as the indemnification clause on IP clearance the Bungee provided to Activision and the Activision has a seat on Bungee Board. All part of the record being considered by the CAFC.
IF the CAFC remands, thats a big If, there will be specific instructions to the PTAB on determining a proper RPI
Inquiry. There will NOT be any review of the validated claims nor has there been any challenge to the claims.
Misrepresentations consistently.
Warrant holders elected to convert for shares, Worlds didn’t choose to dilute, they abided by the agreement with real long term investors.
There was never a choice to sell Marimed shares vs dilution, entirely separate issues.
The patents have enough value as is to proceed back to Federal Court and will based on the oral arguments get back additional claims.
I’ll wager anyone on this board on that outcome.
the cost of any remand if ordered by CAFC is minimal as the facts and evidence has already been presented to the PTAB and CAFC.
Remand has always been an option for CAFC, anyone not realizing that is not looking at the full possibilities of outcomes.
In fact had Worlds not sought remand as an option as an alternative to dismissal in the brief to the CAFC then if CAFC declined to throw out the IPR there would be no other option, remand was a requirement as a backstop.
A remand if that is what the CAFC does will come with a strong ruling against the PTAB. The PTAB is on notice so they have to grant discovery or dismiss the IPR ruling. This is a win win for Worlds, full stop.
Today was a solid win for Worlds.
I attended the oral arguments and the fact that the judges held the hearing well over the time allotted was significant. It signaled that this is an important case with the sole focus on the RPI issue.for those inferring Worlds wasn’t prepared to pointed questions that is absolutely incorrect, every issue raised was addressed.
Suggesting Worlds erred in not appealing 3 IPR rulings in their favor on the RPI issue overlooks the key point that had they appealed those positive rulings Worlds would have opened those claims to further challenge of invalidity. Why would Worlds appeal what they won, that was the question asked by Judge Toranto?
Either the CAFC vacates the IPR rulings on the RPI issue or its remanded with a CAFC reprimand and likely the PTAB will vacate the ruling. iMO
Chief Judge Prost, judge O’Malley and Judge Taranto are Worlds panel
Great selection!
The oral arguments on Friday are the last step in the PTAB appeal process, Worlds is not at the beginning of appeals they are at the end.
There are no motions for invalidity before the CAFC, they can not be raised during the orals as a matter of law at this point in the process nor will Alice/101 be raised, that is a Federal court issue entirely not covered by statute before the PTAB nor CAFC in a PTAB appeal. thats the law.
District Courts are Not Bound by the PTAB’s Validity Determination
Recently, in a combined final written decision, the PTAB held that Kyle Bass’s Coalition for Affordable Drugs did not demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the challenged claims of four of Acorda Therapeutics’ patents are unpatentable. IPR2015-01850, Paper 72 at 4, 54-55 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2017). The challenged patents are directed to Acorda’s drug for treating multiple sclerosis (MS). Acorda produces the drug under the label Amprya®.
However, Acorda’s victory before the PTAB was short-lived. In Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware held that the defendants proved by clear and convincing evidence that the claims of Acorda’s patents were invalid as being obvious over the asserted prior art. 2017 WL 1199767 at *40 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2017) (“While Defendants face a high burden in proving that the Acorda Patents are invalid as obvious, the Court finds … they have met this burden.”). Thus, even though the defendants in the Delaware litigation were faced with a higher burden of proof, the defendants were able to persuade the court to find that the claims which the PTAB previously held to be not invalid are invalid. In a footnote, the district court recognized the PTAB’s opposite conclusion, but indicated that “two of the three references the PTAB was considered are not part of the trial record here.” Id. at *41, n. 1. Thus, unlike Novartis, the court pointed out that the evidence it considered was different from the evidence considered by the PTAB.
In view of the Novartis and Acorda decisions, litigants should not expect the PTAB and the district courts to be bound by each other’s validity determinations.
They did more than “ help us out”
They kept the patent claims alive therefore the Activision case alive and the shares to have value all based on their own due diligence and risk analysis
It is clearly not in their self interest to drive the share price down, for pennies of profit. They are high net worth successful and qualified investors. Follow the real pros because everyone here is just riding on their coattails.
I just checked FINRA’s website and the reverse split is posted and will be effective tomorrow.
http://otce.finra.org/DailyList
The characterization of the warrant holders as loan sharks is flippant, pejorative and false. This group of investors headed by Morris Smith former head of Fidelity Magellan Fund
Funded Worlds to fight the IPR and appeal and without their support there would be no claims to continue the Activision litigation or any other lawsuits. All shareholders should be thankful that they stepped up to support and fund Worlds thereby insuring value for everyone.
Worlds entered a fair and equitable agreement where warrants to purchase shares could be exchanged
for their loans at the fixed market price on the date of the notes, not below market nor a discount or a death spiral vwap average.
Worlds received needed funds to fight the IPR and appeal and the investors/ shareholders took high risk with no assurance of a positive outcome, in exchange they received the right to exchange their loans into stock at the prevailing share price on the date they lent the funds. Simple fair and square deal.
There is not one person on this board who has invested directly in Worlds, all here are speculating short and long term on the backs of those investors who took the highest risk.
They are not loan sharks, period!
I’m not dreaming and am willing to wager you that the number I have cited is correct and that no shares have bern issued until the transfer agent receives final FINRA instructions.
Wrong, as was clearly stated in the press release, “Following prior approval by our shareholders of a range for the stock split, we determined that a 5 to 1 reverse split was a reasonable ratio in order to fulfill our legal obligation to our investors and to allow the Company to receive the warrant exercise funds.”
7 mil shares is the reversed number of shares, the exercise was $.025 the price of shares on the warrant issue date however they will receive the post reverse number of shares, 7 mil.
When effective by FINRA.
Worlds is not a pink sheet stock, it is OTC QB.
Thursday afternoon after 5:00 PM was
The date Finra notified the company as the effective date. The release is consistent with FINRA notice and compliance. The delay in implementing the RS is totally FINRA’s, Worlds has noting to do with the mechanics.
You are making the assumption that a proxy would be approved by 50% of Worlds shareholders. If approval was not given then the reverse split option is gone as a proxy filing overrides all prior shareholder approvals. That could possibly put Worlds in a box with no additional shares to issue and no authority to implement a RS.
Then Worlds would be in default to the Warrant holders and a law suit would occur, not a smart option.
Contact FINRA, Worlds has nothing to due with the RS implementation. fINRA notifies the company of the effective date and a press release is issued.
The ball is in FINRA’s court.
That statement reflects a lack of fundamental understanding of how public companies legally operate.
No CEO can convene a board meeting and authorize additional outstanding shares, that can only be done through a proxy approved by over 50% of shareholders. All done by proxy filings and approval of the SEC, a 5-6 week process and roughly $25k in costs.
Simple, there wasn’t enough shares available to issue the shares with 247,000 outstanding at the time of the exercise therefore the RS was required thus their shares get reduced proportionally as well.
The release date was correct, FINRA informs the company of the effective date for a RS and the company issues a release based upon that notification. FINRA also controls the notification process to the BD’s and transfer agent not Worlds.
Shares for warrant exercise are issued at the 5 to 1 ratio after the RS as are Kidrin’s options. You folks have got to learn how a RS works, it’s across the board for everyone, no special treatment for warrant holders or Kidrin, that is the law.
Quilt, you are correct, the theory is that if foreign based users logged into US based servers they may be construed to be infringing on the US patents even if they changed technology methods, if it was done when covered by the patent coverage dates they should qualify for damages computation.
The warrants are issued at the rs number of shares like every other shareholder.
What most here cant seem to grasp is that the Worlds did not choose when to rs, they had to in order to legally honor the warrant terms which were called-by the warrant holders, who happened to find the IPR and appeal so all shareholders can participate on the upside.
The outstanding remains at 250 mil the authorized is what gets reversed so there are enough reversed ratio shares to issue the warrant holders. Anyone who has read the Q’s knew that thid was factored as an eventuality into the price.
BTW the rs has the effect of blowing out the worthless flippers and penny traders who now have to wear big boy pants if they want to manipulate the sp with some serious skin in the game.