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.
I believe clyw is part of this appeal.
Parties involved in federal appeal. Not familiar with most of the names.
Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-1343 Docketed: 04/22/2013
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent Infringement (Fed. Question)
Calypso Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Appeal From: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Fee Status: fee paid
Case Type Information:
1) Civil Private
2) -
3) -
Originating Court Information:
District: 0540-2 : 08-CV-0441
Trial Judge: J. Rodney Gilstrap, Judge
Date Filed: 11/13/2008
Date NOA Filed: Date Rec'd COA:
04/18/2013 04/19/2013
05/06/2013 2 Entry of appearance for Matthew C. Juren as of counsel for Appellants Calypso Wireless, Inc., Drago Daic and Jimmy Williamson, P.C.. Service: 05/06/2013 by email. [74994]
05/06/2013 3 Entry of appearance for Guy E. Matthews as principal counsel for Appellants Calypso Wireless, Inc., Drago Daic and Jimmy Williamson, P.C.. Service: 05/06/2013 by email. [74995]
05/06/2013 4 Docketing Statement for the Appellants Calypso Wireless, Inc., Drago Daic and Jimmy Williamson, P.C.. Service: 05/06/2013 by email. [74996]
05/06/2013 5 Certificate of Interest for the Appellants Calypso Wireless, Inc., Drago Daic and Jimmy Williamson, P.C.. Service: 05/06/2013 by email. [74997]
05/06/2013 6 Entry of appearance for C. Vernon Lawson as of counsel for Appellants Calypso Wireless, Inc., Drago Daic and Jimmy Williamson, P.C.. Service: 05/06/2013 by email. [74998]
05/06/2013 7 Entry of appearance for Josh A. Krevitt as principal counsel for Appellee T-Mobile USA, Inc.. Service:
05/06/2013 by email. [75007]
05/06/2013 8 Certificate of Interest for the Appellee T-Mobile USA, Inc.. Service: 05/06/2013 by email. [75008]
05/06/2013 9 Docketing Statement for the Appellee T-Mobile USA, Inc.. Service: 05/06/2013 by email. [75009]
05/06/2013 10 Entry of appearance for Alison Watkins as of counsel for Appellee T-Mobile USA, Inc.. Service: 05/06/2013 by email. [75010]
05/06/2013 11 Entry of appearance for Ryan Iwahashi as of counsel for Appellee T-Mobile USA, Inc.. Service: 05/06/2013 by email. [75011]
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
05/07/2013 16:32:14
Most of it is redacted. Don't get me started.
Patent assignment and special likely unlawful insider deals are unrelated. His 28%/100% special deal with the BOC was done without stockholder approval by an unelected, illegitimate board of pirates. That the receiver has been mum on this (and anything else) is disturbing.
If it is judged legitimate.
>>his recovery here is his shares and the 28% proceeds from any TM recovery verdict
We do not know if the receiver and judge plan to honor that little bit of potential fraud.
As Digital Equipment Corporation was dying and we employees were being purged, we were forced to sign contracts promising not to sue the company for the deeds of the many psychotic, abusive "managers" before we could collect our severance packages. Of course, this doesn't apply to CLYW stockholders but I have no doubt such "agreements" are already printed and waiting to go.
Interesting point. The Judge's order to the receiver conflicts with the special deals Daic made with the BOC to basically pork the company and its stockholders. How can he receive 28% of the profits from the patent in the US and 100% in the rest of the world if it is sold to someone else who had no part in that particular little nugget of inside dealing? If we recover from TM and cement ownership, watch for Daic and some of the current and former officers to file suit to recertify the stock. In fact, I would be very surprised if Daic has not already brought the company books up to compliance so he can be ready to go. IIRC, the company records were recovered several years ago through the efforts of several iHub board posters. A plea to reopen trading is almost a certainty if we win against TM. Otherwise, Daic loses a lot. If the appeals court dumps the Texas Markman and SJ, we may again be looking at TM settling one way or another.
Certainly. After all, Daic is just one of the company's former officers who may be charged both criminally and civilly for fraud, theft, conspiracy, wrongful suppression of business, and worse. I would not be surprised that, after all is done and CLYW has won the patent battle, we shareholders will be required to sign a contract promising not to sue Daic and the BOC before we see a penny for our shares.
Not the same bed, really. With Daic's tens of millions of shares and the rights to the 923 patent outside the U.S. (if his agreements with CLYW are upheld), he stands to make several billion dollars if we win the patent case. That's some incentive.
It's my understanding that the stock was delisted because the BOC had not created and filed with the SEC the required financials for about six years. Perhaps you can reach Turrini in Paraguay and ask him what progress has been made on that front. Nothing says "confidence" like fleeing the country.
Appeal to Federal Court 22 April 2013. Appeal of Markman and entire case. 151 pages.
http://navlog.org/appeal_april13.pdf
Party Name Court Case NOS Date Filed Date Closed
2 Calypso Wireless, Inc (pla) txsdce 4:2010-mc-00020 01/19/2010
PACER shows we have an open case against TM filed in January, 2010, before Judge Hoyt. What is it?
Then the appeals court gets to decide if Payne's actions were just when he re-wrote the 923 patent out of whole cloth to favor TM and then disregarded CLYW's testimony. Sounds good to me.
The 1 in 10 odds are gleaned from an 'all things rolled in' table from another poster. IIRC, the rate of overturning the Eastern Texas court that treated us in such a grotesque and prejudiced fashion re. a patent was approx. 42%. Far better odds.
1 in 10 odds is better than what we got in Texas. Never before heard of a judge first rewriting a plaintiff's patent to favor the defendant and then ending a case in favor of the defendant because "no reasonable juror could ever find for the plaintiff" in a complicated technology case. That is PRECISELY the type of case for which a juror can find in favor of the plaintiff.
Like what? Our case is similar to scores of others in which huge corporations who were violating the patents of small companies bullied their way to victory. We'd need a well-read business publication to serialize this saga for the general readership. That the stock has been decertified means that only 1,500 or so stockholders have any skin in the game. CLYW is much more likely to become a business school case study -- if someone writes it.
With billions at stake I would not be surprised if this gets to SCOTUS.
What would fit into a 151-page appeal? Sounds like Daic has been working on this for months.
151 pages! Can't wait to read it.
==========================================
Filing with Federal Appeals Court 4/19/13
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-1343 Docketed: 04/22/2013
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent Infringement (Fed. Question)
Calypso Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Appeal From: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall)
Fee Status: fee paid
Case Type Information:
1) Civil Private
2) -
3) -
Originating Court Information:
District: 0540-2 : 08-CV-0441
Trial Judge: J. Rodney Gilstrap, Judge
Date Filed: 11/13/2008
Date NOA Filed: Date Rec'd COA:
04/18/2013 04/19/2013
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
None
CALYPSO WIRELESS, INC.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant - Appellant Guy E. Matthews, Esq., -
Direct: 713-355-4200
Email: gmatthews@matthewsfirm.com
Fax: 713-355-9689
[NTC]
Matthews, Lawson & Johnson, PLLC
2000 Bering Drive
Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
DRAGO DAIC
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant - Appellant Guy E. Matthews, Esq., -
Direct: 713-355-4200
[NTC]
(see above)
JIMMY WILLIAMSON, P.C.
Counterclaim Defendant - Appellant Guy E. Matthews, Esq., -
Direct: 713-355-4200
[NTC]
(see above)
v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC.
Defendant/Counterclaimant - Appellee Benjamin Hershkowitz
Direct: 212-351-2410
Email: BHershkowitz@gibsondunn.com
Fax: 212-351-6210
[NTC]
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
CALYPSO WIRELESS, INC. and DRAGO DAIC,
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-
Appellants,
and
JIMMY WILLIAMSON, P.C.,
Counterclaim Defendant-
Appellant,
v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant/Counterclaimant-
Appellee.
04/22/2013 1
151 pg, 3.5 MB Appeal docketed. Received: 04/19/2013. [69908]
Entry of Appearance due 05/06/2013. Certificate of Interest is due on 05/06/2013. Docketing Statement due 05/06/2013. Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due 06/21/2013.
Documents and Docket Summary
Documents Only
Include Page Numbers
Selected Pages: Selected Size:
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
04/26/2013 15:23:37
Description: Docket Report (filtered) Search Criteria: 13-1343 Filed 4/19/2013 - 4/26/2013
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.10
Court Information Court Home PACER Service Center Change Client Billing History Contact Us
So? After nine years of agony (YMMV), what's two months?
Let me suggest that iHub change the name of this board to "z*fka CLYW," or, "Zombie Formerly Known as Calypso Wireless." Any company that has come back from the dead this many times needs to have a unique descriptor.
6 May is only 7 working days away. Suggests Daic has had this in the works since Judge Payne made his incomprehensible "no sane juror" ruling. As I've said previously, with a billion dollars + on the line for Daic, I didn't see him quitting this.
Access WHERE? HOW?
Where do you find this information?
Looked where? Where can you find current court information? I contacted both Gentile and Williamson and, as before, they have ignored me.
Share of what? The company is bankrupt. Gentile stood to make $$$ and Daic stood to get more than a billion dollars if we won the patent suit. I don't understand why he'd give up now. I am STILL waiting for my PACER login so I can check for any filings.
I have contacted both receiver Gentile and Daic's lawyer Williamson about the official status of our case. Neither has replied.
Williamson?
"Williamson and Rusnak, L.L.P.- Law firm in Houston, Texas ...
Williamson & Rusnak, L.L.P. Williamson & Rusnak, L.L.P. is a Law Firm in Houston, Texas. Client ... Phone number not available. Fax number not available. Website not available. Areas of Law.
www.lawyers.com/Texas/Houston/Williamson-and-Rusnak-L-L-P... - Cached
How cooperative.
I applied for a PACER account and never received a reply. Perhaps someone else on this board could check.
Unknown. I have a call into the receiver (who never returned my call from February). If I had a fax number of email for Daic I'd ask him, too.
I'm still waiting for the fat lawyer to sing.
It's my understanding that CLYW had 30 days from the resolution of our Texas trial to appeal to the next higher court. Some have suggested that Daic never wanted to win so that he could later pick-up the patent on the cheap and wage real war against infringers. Our poor litigation in Texas suggests that might be true. I'm not a court watcher but even I, with no legal training, am horrified at the apparent incompetence -- or worse -- of our legal "team." The receivership judge ordered the receiver -- who never returned my phone calls -- to get as much money from the patent as possible and distribute it to us owners. In this the receiver, either through incompetence or worse, has been a complete failure who doesn't bother to communicate with us shareholders. Since he stands to get a good piece of change from such a sale, his apparent incompetent behavior is all the more puzzling. He's acted as if he doesn't care at all.
I believe the 30 days is up this week. There is still a chance Daic will indeed file an appeal; I believe he filed with the Texas court an appeal of the brain-dead Markman decision at about 5pm on the last day of the window. After us having been told by the Texas judge that no sane juror could find for CLYW so he was canceling the trial (I believe this sets a precedent in unfair and perhaps unlawful behavior), Daic and we stand to lose literally a billion dollars. That doesn't seem to be in his character to accept.
That assumes the next court of appeal also believes no sane jury would find for CLYW.
Good conspiracy theory but it wouldn't work. What would happen is TM buying at auction the patent for a billion dollars or so (i.e. pocket change for them) and thus being freed from any future annoyances like our current suit, plus the ability to sue infringers against the patent. Daic wouldn't have a chance against TM's money.
Just wait until Payne grants TM the $5M they seek in "costs." Plus, interest on such claims is 18%/year. The last physics I had was in high school and even I know TM's argument was crap. At the risk of sounding judgmental, let me say that either our lawyers suck or the case was thrown. Will make an interesting chapter in any book to be written.
$1.80/share? WTF? Is this real?
So what? Judge Payne has already ruled that no sane juror could possibly find for Calypso in our case. So, why bother with an actual jury trial? Half of the satisfaction in being granted an appeal would be in having Mr. Payne's cozy little satrapy slapped-down.
The judge showed far worse prejudice towards CLYW than that. He granted a summary judgment for TM upon the basis of the facts being so much against CLYW that "no sane juror could ever find in favor of CLYW." I don't know the legal definition of "gangsterism," but this sure seems to fit.
OTOH, he stands to get as much as Three billion dollars if he/we wins the appeal. That's a lot of incentive.