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.
NUNCHI means sucker in English to investors and to target companies it means patent troll get out the $75,000 check! My opinion! Diggers are always left grasping at straws using their greed and imagination....exactly as intended!
For those interested in the nitty gritty of the case PTSC needs to get past their 336 oscillator, according to the appeals court being “an oscillator located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the central processing unit that does not require a command input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.”
PTSC feels they can get past the first bolded part that was modified by the appeals court because they said in their appeals brief the wording would be ok with them. The problem is if they can get past the second part that was not changed. I suspect PTSC wanted it changed because it is complicated for a jury to understand which makes sense. Is it a game ender? I do not know. All the accused infringing products in the case use a PLL or phased locked loop. Below is what a phased locked loop is defined to be. It is a feedback mechanism. The point is the crystal itself they use is not running at the actual frequency of the on chip oscillator because it cannot generate that high a frequency and does it not DIRECTLY command it with that same frequency. Does "fixed" in the CC mean the actual frequency or does it also include a computer calculated derivative of the frequency of the crystal which is what the PLL uses to control the frequency but not COMMAND it. Can there be an external crystal and that would be ok with the claims construction but just not one that is running at the exact same frequency of the on chip oscillator. Complicated stuff for sure and the answer will determine the outcome. I wish I could tell!
From Wikipedia:
"Phase-locked loops with frequency dividers[edit]
A phase-locked loop (PLL) uses a reference frequency to generate a multiple of that frequency. A voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) is initially tuned roughly to the range of the desired frequency multiple. The signal from the VCO is divided down using frequency dividers by the multiplication factor. The divided signal and the reference frequency are fed into a phase comparator. The output of the phase comparator is a voltage that is proportional to the phase difference. After passing through a low pass filter and being converted to the proper voltage range, this voltage is fed to the VCO to adjust the frequency. This adjustment increases the frequency as the phase of the VCO's signal lags that of the reference signal and decreases the frequency as the lag decreases (or lead increases). The VCO will stabilize at the desired frequency multiple. This type of PLL is a type of frequency synthesizer.
Phase locked loop (PLL)
Using a varactor-controlled or voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) (described above in varactor under analog VFO techniques) and a phase detector, a control-loop can be set up so that the VCO's output is frequency-locked to a crystal-controlled reference oscillator. The phase detector's comparison is made between the outputs of the two oscillators after frequency division by different divisors. Then by altering the frequency-division divisor(s) under computer control, a variety of actual (undivided) VCO output frequencies can be generated. The PLL technique dominates most radio VFO designs today.
Stability[edit]
Stability is the measure of how far a VFO's output frequency drifts with time and temperature.[5] To mitigate this problem, VFOs are generally "phase locked" to a stable reference oscillator. PLLs use negative feedback to correct for the frequency drift of the VFO allowing for both wide tuning range and good frequency stability.[6]
Repeatability[edit]
Ideally, for the same control input to the VFO, the oscillator should generate exactly the same frequency. A change in the calibration of the VFO can change receiver tuning calibration; periodic re-alignment of a receiver may be needed. VFO's used as part of a phase-locked loop frequency synthesizer have less stringent requirements since the system is as stable as the crystal-controlled reference frequency.
A shareholder could have died recently and the shares sold off to settle the estate. There are many very old shareholders as this debacle has been going on for awhile and eventually some are going to die of old age. Just a theory! Or there might be a sale of those unissued shares that is imminent and somebody nose something!
The critique is for buying and holding thinking the new claims construction is going to lead to long term riches when it never works out that way. I still buy if there is a frenzy of momentum trading but then I make sure to sell a day or two later or even in the same day. When PTSC started going up with volume all the momentum traders computers lit up and they bought. I bought at or slightly before they started buying since I have been watching the stock and sold into the frenzy yesterday. If it pulls back to 1c I may buy more with some of the profits as a dice roll on what happens next. I still think the CC will end up tanking PSTC. I hope to see the PACER filing first and sell before that happens! If PTSC says they can continue I will buy some more and sell into the frenzy. Could be a lot of trading opps then.
I buy on the early momentum and sell when folks are saying PTSCs going to the moon! Pretty simply. Folks always get carried away when the only reason it is going up is that its going up! The stock could slink back to .008 or 1c. with the loss of momentum or the momentum could be regained and then I will try to ride it a bit more. Just making a little money at a time rather than get stuck holding the bag which happens a lot in this stock!
The momentum driven buying could be running out of steam for now. The next word from PTSC will be if they feel they are done after evaluating the claims construction. At least I made some money on the play. I will be watching PACER closely to see what the next action is so I can make a play before a PR comes out.
"Further proceedings" means doing what the appeals court told them to do. You really do not understand what an appeals court does with its rulings? It means "do what we said it is now the law". Please mortgage your house and load up with as many shares as possible and hold them! U gonna be RICH! The district court must follow these instructions:
"We affirm the district court’s construction that an “entire
oscillator” is one “whose frequency is not fixed by any
external crystal.”
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
mR.Biggie face it you lost the claims construction! Read it! Of course it does not mean money cannot be made off all the momo player piling into the stock who made it rise simply because they realized it was rising and piled on. Those folks who are buying do not even know what PTSC does or what the ruling says. That is how they work its a big pile on that their computer programs picked up and they bought. Maybe another 1c rise from here. I hope you are the one who actually holds onto bought shares! I need some folks who are clueless to hold so I can sell into their ignorance! I know it SEEMS like you won but as the appeals court conclusion points out it does not matter. Half of the CC was AFFIRMED so it kills PTSCs case. Anyway please buy more shares and hold them! To the moon baby!
"We affirm the district court’s construction that an “entire
oscillator” is one “whose frequency is not fixed by any
external crystal.”
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Claims construction was MODIFIED by the appeals court. PART of it was reversed PART of it remains. Did you even read the ruling? I certainly made a few bucks on the momo rise! Definitely worth playing with the stock. Todays momo will draw in more players as the stock popped so there may be more money to be made. I certainly would not go long for very long. The appeals court gave the district court cart blanche to end the case when they said it would likely not change the outcome because PTSC stipulated to non infringement. Their "opinion" in not like some guy on the streets opinion on a topic. The appeals court claims construction is the one the district court judge has to use going forward. PTSC has only said they are reviewing the ruling to determine their next move. That review could very well say that they feel they cannot win even with the new claims construction. There is not going to be some other new construction out of the district court. If that PR comes out then it is look out below. If PTSC says they feel they can continue and IF the district court even lets them then the defendants will file for a summary judgement. The district court could simply approve a summary judgement of non infringement at that point. If not then it goes to trial. It is certainly no slam dunk at that point for PTSC because the issues are very complicated for anybody to understand.
The appeals court said:
"Although this minor modification to the district court’s construction likely does not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s construction"
They said that because they affirmed one of the 2 key limitations in the CC that PTSC stipulated non infringement to.
The stock is running on momentum. The people buying shares driving the price have no idea what PTSC does and what the ruling is. You actually did not win anything since the claims construction was only modified and half of it remained that PTSC could not get changed. The appeals court ruling acts as advisement to the district court and they said it is unlikely to change the outcome. What on earth could that mean? Snicker. They just don't willy nilly give their opinion to have it disregarded by the district court judge. That opinion was based on the fact the CC was only partially changed and part remains and PTSC stipulated to non infringement. If you actually think PTSC is free and clear to resume the trial you are dreaming. Also I bought 300k shares at .008 and turned them over at .015! Nice almost double in a few days. I hope you hold your shares and see what happens!
The appeals court affirmed claims construction part which says when referring to a key attribute of the 336 oscillator "and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.” is tough to see how PTSC gets past that.
All PLLs use a reference crystal to stabilize the frequency of the on chip generated signal. In Magar the actual specific frequency of the off chip crystal was the actual frequency fed directly to the on chip and used to clock the chip. In the 336 patent the on chip oscillator generates a frequency which is then stabilized using a formula derived from the frequency of the off chip crystal. If there is a deviation from the formula a voltage increase or decrease is sent to the on chip oscillator to increase or decrease its speed until it is "locked" with the crystal generated formula. Is this considered the "same difference" I do not know. One thing is for sure and that is PTSC argued very hard to keep that wording out of the CC and the appeals court affirmed it. The reason I imagine is that the subject matter can be so confusing to the non expert jury and judges.
So the new claims construction is no crystal FIXING the frequency of the on chip oscillator. Is regulating or controlling it using a derivative of the frequency of the off chip crystal actually FIXING it? Is FIXING it an exact frequency match to the crystals frequency?
Below is the definition of a PLL which all the accused products use from Wikipedia. Basically the PLL synthesizes a frequency:
"Phase-locked loops with frequency dividers[edit]
A phase-locked loop (PLL) uses a reference frequency to generate a multiple of that frequency. A voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) is initially tuned roughly to the range of the desired frequency multiple. The signal from the VCO is divided down using frequency dividers by the multiplication factor. The divided signal and the reference frequency are fed into a phase comparator. The output of the phase comparator is a voltage that is proportional to the phase difference. After passing through a low pass filter and being converted to the proper voltage range, this voltage is fed to the VCO to adjust the frequency. This adjustment increases the frequency as the phase of the VCO's signal lags that of the reference signal and decreases the frequency as the lag decreases (or lead increases). The VCO will stabilize at the desired frequency multiple. This type of PLL is a type of frequency synthesizer."
You may sucker a few into buying who do not read the actual ruling and see the appeals court AFFIRMED half the district courts claims construction. That means that half is not in error and remains intact. You try to mislead with the headline. Here is what the appeals court said:
"We affirm the district court’s construction that an “entire
oscillator” is one “whose frequency is not fixed by any
external crystal.”
On remand, the district court will need to decide whether this change in the claims construction impacts the prior non-infringement decision against TPL/PTSC. The appeals court ruling is meant to SERVE AS A GUIDE to the district court on what to do. Though they did not say for sure your case is done the appeals court did say:
"Although this minor modification to the district court’s construction likely does not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s construction"
The reason they said so is half of the district courts claims construction was actually affirmed on appeal. The district court could simply say you are done because the change left intact 1 limitation on the 336 patent or there could be more arguments. Before investing here I would certainly want to see if the district court does not simply say your done as the appeals court seems to believe. Then I would want to hear TPL/PTSCs argument about how they can over come the modified construction. The modification is wording PTSC actually said they were ok with but what was left from the original claims construction is wording PTSC argued hard against and lost.
The ruling has 2 key limitations and 1 was affirmed by the appeals court as they said in their ruling. The Magar limitation was affirmed and stays in the claims construction and the Sheets limitation was modified. That is why the appeals court said its MODIFICATION of the claims construction would likely not change the outcome. PTSC fought both hard and won on only 1, Sheets. The stock is done long term as PTSC did stipulate to non infringement on the ruling and the fact that 1 of the 2 distinct limitations holds up on appeal leaves them screwed. The NDOC will likely approve a motion for summary judgement or simply hold PTSC to their stipulation of non infringement. Of course there will be room for trading here but when PTSC issues their PR that their lawyers have actually finished reviewing the appeal and determined they are done the stock plummets to zero. There is no actual "win" here only procedural stuff left to finish. I would make sure to take some profits on the advance. Most people are clueless and have not even read the actual ruling.
NO crystal interaction with the on chip oscillator to help set the frequency is allowed for there to be infringement under this claims construction. All the accused chips use a PLL which uses a crystal to set and fix the frequency of the on chip oscillator by sending voltage adjustments. In this claims construction from the appeals court that will be used going forward it does not matter where the frequency originated only that it was fixed and the role of the PLL and crystal used on all the accused infringing products is to fix and stabilize (LOCK as in phased locked loop PLL) the frequency to a set level. If this thing pops DUMP IT. Of course I will ride it for a few bucks if the momo traders get lured in by the volume and price rise. Gotta make a buck!
The Germans too know nothing! You should read their message board. They are simply reacting to the price and volume. If momo players pile on it could be worth a ride but I would make sure to get off! The appeals court ruling does not read well and certainly seems more likely than not that PTSCs next PR could be that they reviewed the ruling and do not feel they can win or the NDOC judge could say sorry you stipulated to non infringement under the NDOC claims construction and 1 part or the 2 part construction was affirmed by the appeals court therefore you are done.
The appeals court claims construction IS the claims construction going forward that will be used by the NDOC. They did not throw out the old one they only modified half its wording which is why they said they "MODIFIED" it. Below quote from the appeals court ruling it says they AFFIRMED part of the NDOC construction. You guys literally know nothing! Don't you even try to read the information from the court? The appeals court change is likely simply procedural or else PTSC would never have stipulated to non infringement. The remanding for further proceedings part means that PTSC the defendants and the NDOC will have to decide if the modified claims construction still means PTSC stipulation to non infringement applies. Since half of it held up it seems a possibility which would be really bad.
I would like to see PTSC next step and if they can even argue under the modified claims construction or if the NDOC will simply say the stipulation to non infringement applies to both limitations in the CC one of which survived so PTSCs done.
From the appeals court ruling:
"We affirm the district court’s construction that an “entire
oscillator” is one “whose frequency is not fixed by any
external crystal.”
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
A "win" but also a loss:III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Nobody here actually read the ruling! Like when the initial bad NDOC claims construction came out PTSC has again issued a PR saying they are evaluating their next move based on the ruling. The share price did not tank yet at that time as it has now not tanked. AT this point PTSCs next PR could say they are done since half of the 2 distinct limitations in the claims construction were affirmed by the appeals court or they could say they feel they can continue. I expect then the defendants will ask for a summary judgement if PTSC continues.
The point is half of the 2 distinct limitations in the claims construction PTSC has already stipulated to non infringement is still valid according to the appeals court. That is why the appeals court said it would likely not effect the outcome of the case in their ruling. Was PTSCs stipulation to non infringement based on both limitations specifically or simply the entire construction with the stipulation prompted only by the sheets prior art limitation in the CC. Will the NDOC hold PTSC to that stipulation since one limitation was affirmed on appeal? Better to be out than in at this point because the next PR from PTSC could say they have evaluated the ruling and its game over. That would mean a huge down move very quickly to almost nothing. PTSC argued strenuously against the Magar limitation on the 336 in their brief to the appeals court and completely lost that. The Magar limitation means PTSCs 336 invention cannot have any crystal fixing the frequency of the on chip oscillator. The way the infringing chips operate is they use a PLL which uses a off chip crystal to lock or fix the frequency are a certain level. It does not actually fix it to the frequency of the actual crystals frequency but uses the crystal to compute a fixing of the frequency. The frequency certainly does originate on the chip at least initially before being fixed. Is the new CC simply no involvement of any off chip crystal in any capacity? They did overcome the sheets prior art CC limitation and got the language they wanted in the CC. My opinion here.
SO the ruling was not instant death as it would have been if the claims construction was simply affirmed by the appeals court but it could very well be that PTSC is none the less fatally wounded. It is hard to tell if PTSC can get past their own stipulation to non infringement since it was made based to 2 separate limitations one of which was affirmed by the appeals court.
Oh and good luck selling in the am! The german market will beat U 2 it. Jus say N my friend. Tried 2 help U!
Buddie- U lost. The messenger is not relevant. Did you not even read the ruling? I bolded the key part 4 U!
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
I have been following the case for years to find out how it will turn out. Why would my motivation matter? The message board posts have no effect on the share price but the legal matters do. Did you even bother to read the judges opinion? Here is the important part:
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
The changes were minor as the appeals court said and will likely not change the outcome they also said. The problem is there are 2 separate limitations in the claims construction. They each alone potentially kill your case. The appeals court changed one that might help you but left one (bolded) that kills your case.
From the appeals doc this is the construction you wanted:
An oscillator “that does not require command inputs to change frequency and excluding external crystals/clocks to generate a clock signal.”
This is the construction by the district court that was appealed:
“an [oscillator] that does not require a control signal and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.”
Here is the appeals court claims construction:
“an oscillator that does not require a command input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.”
The appeals court basically affirmed the district courts claim construction with VERY MINOR changes. This is the claim construction that PTSCs own lawyers said leads to non infringement by the defendants and was the basis for the appeal. I bolded the parts that the appeals court left:
Here is Judge Grewals claims construction that was appealed:
“an [oscillator] located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the [central processing unit] that does not require a control signal and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.”
Here is the appeals court claims construction:
“an oscillator located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the central processing unit that does not require a command input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.”
Tried 2 help U biggie! Now you lost all. All you had to do was listen to the legal argument I posted and you would have known it was time 2 sell. Jus say N!
Would'N'T want to be a seller Monday! Gonna be UGLY! I think it will trade below 1 tenth of a cent. Tried to help U all as the friend I have always been.
Hope Y'ALL sold UR shares today! I let you know as soon as I knew it was likely over and you could have sold today after my post around 1pm. Sorry for you losses. When PTSC makes their statement you wont get .002c for those shares. They are essentially worthless. Jus TRY N to help U as I always have. Jus say N! Tank me later. Ronran will fill you in on the gory details later. If you had only signed on to a FREE PACER account you would have had the info before trading ended today.
Yeah you lost. Sign up for PACER here for free https://www.pacer.gov/reg_pacer.html
And you can read the entire opinion. It does not look good. Just use the pacer case locator and search the appellate cases for Technology Properties Limited LLC and case 16-1306 and you will find the text of the decision. MY opinion but when you read the whole thing I think you will agree and know it is over.
From the PACER:
"We affirm the district court’s construction that an “entire
oscillator” is one “whose frequency is not fixed by any
external crystal.”
So no external crystal at all doing anything to change the on chip oscillators frequency. Well that rules out all infringing chips because they use PLL and external crystals imo. The problem here is PTSC already said that this construction lead them to stipulate non infringement. That construction was approved by the appeals court.
From the PACER:
"None of these statements disclaim an entire oscillator
receiving a command input for any purpose. Every time
the patentee mentioned a “control signal” or “command
input,” it did so only in the context of using a command
input to modify the frequency of the CPU clock. This
understanding is consistent with the patentee’s characterization
of the benefits of its invention. It argued that by
placing the CPU and CPU clock on the same silicon
substrate, the frequencies of both “automatically vary
together.” J.A. 2094. This eliminates the need for a
command input to change clock frequency. As the patentee
explained, “the oscillator or variable speed clock varies
in frequency but does not require manual or programmed
inputs or external or extra components to do so.” Id.
We hold that an “entire oscillator” is one “that does
not require a command input to change the clock frequency.”
III"
Ok so the district court made an error here and command inputs are indeed allowed in the 336 patent JUST NOT ONES THAT CHANGE THE CLOCK FREQUENCY which all the infringing chips do with a PLL to stabilize the clock frequency to a certain level. This will inevitably change the clock frequency which is initially generated on the chip.
Basically the appeals court said the district court got it half right which is enough for you to likely lose as they said in their conclusion but the half that was changed by the appeal does not help you much either in my opinion. That is why the judges said this (my bolding):
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED"
At any rate it is very bad news for PTSC. If only their lawyer could have better articulated your argument. The whole key to the 336 that made it inventive was GENERATING the initial clocking signal. Your lawyer maybe mentioned this in passing at the end of his argument. Pretty incompetent. From here it will go back to the district court who will make the minor change in claim construction and you likely still lose because the district court decision had to be totally wrong for you to win. Then maybe PTSC requests an "en banc" appeal request where all the judges of the appeals court hear the case not just the 3 judge panel who made this decision. Those are almost never granted. Heck I bet PTSC appeals it all the way to the Supreme Court to keep those checks coming!
From the PACER from today:
Hard to find any good news in it especially the judges conclusion where they state their minor change to the districts court claims construction will likely not change the outcome.
This is on Magar prior art:
We hold that the district court’s
narrowing construction based on Magar—“whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal”—properly encapsulates
the patentee’s disclaiming statements.
We affirm the district court’s construction that an “entire
oscillator” is one “whose frequency is not fixed by any
external crystal.”
This is on Sheets:
We hold that an “entire oscillator” is one “that does
not require a command input to change the clock frequency.”
This is the appeals court judges conclusion (my bolding and underlining):
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
That is from the PACER document for PTSCs appeal. It was filed today. Basically the judges say you lost. I would use the info to sell ASAP before the rest of the herd reads it. Don't you have a PACER account?
Verdicts in. Looks like ya lost (my bolding):
III. CONCLUSION
We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said
integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located
entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the
central processing unit that does not require a command
input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency
is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor
modification to the district court’s construction likely does
not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties
stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s
construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate
and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
No costs
They are playing dunces for their ongoing paychecks and Falks soon retirement. Then maybe Nunally will become CEO or Falks kid and play shareholders kids for their money (some shareholders will die of old age by then). EDIGs got a little pot of gold to play with their deeply underwater shareholders who cannot admit they got flim flamed and simply sell and walk away. I understand that EDIG played folks well with their implied potential. Fred, Mardee and their maybe part time tech guy Kevin and the good "doctor" (SNICKER) Nunnally will lead them to RICHES I tell ya! Snicker. As somebody here said it is a good psychological study on denial. MY OPINION! I cant wait to see their play to sell those 50 million outstanding but unissued shares. You know they will do anything to keep going. Manufacturing "partner" (company they hired) for their water thingee which already exists in well capitalized established players? I think so!
Buyout? WHY! Just pay $75,000 for a license and you have their "valuable" (to Falk and the lawyers anyway) tech! That always amuses me when folks think there is going to be some EDIG buyout in the dollars per share! Why buy the company for millions/billions when you can have use of all the tech for a $75k license fee which we can deduce from the financials?
NEVER underestimate the FI folks ability to breathe hope into EDIG! They still expect a big Google settlement or some super secret big money partnership that somehow does not have to be disclosed to the SEC as a material event:
Re: If there's no royalties -/ noone
in response to Re: If there's no royalties -/ noone by techwiz
posted on Mar 01, 2017 12:24AM
Log in to use the IP Check tool [?]
2 settlements. Approximately $74,000 income. Yes, I can see why no separate announcement was made.
Still, I wonder if the Google settlement was included. Or maybe Google is the expected income mentioned for next quarter?
It will be time to fill EDIGs golden coffers soon so 27 years of innovation can continue! The diggers many confident customers/shareholder will gladly pony up their money to buy new shares once EDIG tells them about their implied plans to make them FILTHY RICH! Count on it. I will be buying into their enthusiasm and selling before they run out of momo players and suckers.
PTSC Appeal loss: AFFRIMED>>
That is all the judges do when they confirm the loss of an appeal. No explanation. Appeals are almost never won maybe 5% of the time. PTSC case was especially weak and poorly argued so the odds of you winning are even more remote. Don't believe me? Listen to the recording for yourself. The female judges actually says you lost verbatim!
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?title=&field_case_number_value=1306&field_date_value2%5Bvalue%5D%
Netatmo LLC settlement!!!! Snicker about $75,000 into EDIGs golden coffers if the most recent financials of 2 settlements and $150,000 of patent licensing revenue are correct. I believe the $75k # has been about all EDIG has managed to troll out of its victims. Even though the earliest settlements in 2008 of several hundred thousand dollars was not able to do more than keep the company trolling along now these far smaller settlements still seem to excite the FI folks! Naïve to the end. I expect to see some buying today as they average down yet again! This time gonna be different yup we so smart EDIG would never exaggerate their implied potential nope. My opinion (in case EDIG starts a new potentially very lucrative biz suing message board posters).
Not just wrong! They watched the stock go from a few dollars to a few cents for well over a decade as the company pumped out optimistic sounding PRs implying potential that never worked out and they added shares averaging down! Basically walked into a punch. Not only that but the mildest criticism is attacked without mercy and deleted! A self-reinforcing bubble. As you said quite the psychological experiment.
"How many employees has EDIG let go over the last 15 years?"
Almost all of them! They now have the invaluable Falk, Mardee (who is the accountant CFO who does not seem very busy!) and Kevin Bosterino (sp?) who may be part time then they have the good "Doctor" (snicker) Nunally as a consultant who had that great idea to pump broadband through natural gas lines which appeared to flop. In my opinion. Quite a crew don't ya think!
This is how fooled they are that everybody infringes on NUNCHI(E) who uses sensor info over the internet to inform decisions. Very sad folks can be fooled this easily:
"I alerted us/Tony minute saw 1st commercial on TV
https://developer.android.com/training/location/geofencing.html
https://www.creators.com/read/lenore-skenazy/04/16/verizons-hum-allows-parents-to-track-their-teen-drivers-why-this-stinks
imo
e"