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.
Prior Art Enablement: Burden on Patent Applicant to Prove Non-Enablement
by Dennis Crouch
In re Antor Media Corp (Fed. Cir. 2012)(Lourie, J.)
As part of an ex parte reexamination process, the Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI) found Antor's patent claims invalid as both anticipated and obvious based upon the combination of four prior art references. The patent under reexamination – No. 5,734,961 – covers a fairly simple network-based data transfer method.
On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Antor challenged the anticipation holding. Its argument was that the examiner had not provided any evidence that the asserted prior art was sufficient to enable anyone to practice the Antor invention. The Federal Circuit agreed that prior art must provide an enabling disclosure (for anticipation), but still rejected Antor's argument by holding that the USPTO need not even consider the enablement question unless the applicant first presents prima facie evidence of non-enablement.
The court held
“that, during patent prosecution, an examiner is entitled to reject claims as anticipated by a prior art publication or patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that prior art reference is enabling. As long as an examiner makes a proper prima facie case of anticipation by giving adequate notice under § 132, the burden shifts to the applicant to submit rebuttal evidence of nonenablement.”
Thus, prior art references are presumed to be sufficiently enabled. Here, the court affirmed that Antor had not rebutted this presumption of enablement because the patentee did “not show[] that undue experimentation would be needed to practice the claimed invention” based upon the disclosure in the prior art.
Enablement is normally treated as a question of law. Here, however, enablement of the prior art is a subset of the factual inquiry into anticipation. As such, it appears that the court has treated enablement of the prior art as an underlying question of fact and applied the substantial evidence rule to its review of the BPAI decision.
To be clear, the prior art enablement question looks to whether the arguably anticipatory prior art sufficiently enables the invention now being patented. You'll notice that the above discussion focused on anticipation rather than obviousness. The conclusion that a prior art reference lacks enablement does not exclude the reference from consideration during an obviousness challenge. Thus, Antor mounted (and lost) a separate argument against the obviousness rejections that had been affirmed by the BPAI. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Under § 103 … a reference need not be enabled; it qualifies as a prior art, regardless, for whatever is disclosed therein").
pessimism over USPTO re-exam. Lack of info concerning the Interwoven Lawsuit and a general feeling that this is going nowhere. Take any one of the three
courtesy of SPARKER on Raging bull #323109
IN RE REEXAM PATENT NO. 6,826,744
AMDT. DATED MAY 31, 2012
REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION OF APRIL 18, 2012
CONTROL NO. 90/009,982
ATTY DOCKET NO. 2556.205
REMARKS/ARGUMENTS
Patent Owner appreciates the Examiner's indication that Claims 6,8, 19,30,32,41,50, and 51 are patentable and/or confirmed.
Patent Owner will address each new basis for the rejection ofthe pending claims, below. Patent Owner may not address each dependent claim, on the understanding that when an independent claim is deemed patentable, then all its dependent claims, which may contain additional patentable subject matter, are also deemed patentable.
Patent Owner has carefully considered the application in view ofthe Examiner's action and, in light of the following remarks, respectfully requests the issuance of a Certification of Patentability of all pending claims. In the event that the Examiner finds any issues that might preclude the issuance of a Certification of Patentability, Patent Owner respectfully requests an interview on these issues.
Status of Litigation
In an effort to enforce its patent rights, on April 18, 2007, Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. ("Patent Owner") filed a lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation for patent infringement of the instant patent, Patent No. 6,826,744 (the '744 Patent) in the Eastern District of Texas. The case settled on July 24,2008, prior to a Markman hearing.
In a continuing effort to enforce its patent rights, and pursuant to 37 CFR 1.565(a), on November 15,2010, Patent Owner sued LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc., LG Electronics Inc., Samsung Electronics CO. LTD, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., for infringement ofthe '744 Patent as well as Patent No. 7,716,629 (the '629 Patent, filed November 29,2004, and issued May 11,2010, as a continuation ofthe '744 Patent). That litigation is still pending and discovery has not yet commenced. A Markman hearing has been scheduled for 2013.
Patent Owner entered into negotiations with Interwoven, Inc., who Patent Owner believed was infringing the instant patent, the '744 Patent, as well as the continuation patent, the '629 Patent. After months of failed negotiations between the companies, Interwoven filed suit for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco division, with respect to the instant patent, the '744 Patent, as well as the continuation patent, the '629 Patent.
Since the inception ofthe lawsuit, Interwoven has amended its Complaint and Vertical has answered with a counter-claim for patent infringement. The parties have begun discovery, fully briefed the issue of claim construction, and participated in a Markman hearing. Following the Markman hearing, the Court issued a claim construction order on December 30,2011, largely rejecting Interwoven's limiting arguments and construing most ofthe contested terms according to their plain and ordinary meanings. Four business days later, on January 6,2012, Interwoven filed a request for the instant ex parte reexamination proceeding for both patents-in-suit, and reexamination ofboth patents has subsequently been granted. Subsequently, Interwoven moved to stay all judicial proceedings pending the outcome ofthis ex parte reexamination. On March 8, 2012, the District Court for the Northern District of California denied the motion for stay.
Rejections under 35 U.S.CO l02(b) and 35 U.S.CO l03(a)
Claims 1,2,4,5,7,11,18,21,22,25,26,28,29,31,33,40,44, and 47 stand rejected under 35 US.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Borland® Delphi for 3 for Windows 95 & Windows NT, User's Guide", 1997; 478 pages (hereinafter "Borland"). Claims 9, 10,22-25,44Â49, and 52 stand rejected under 35 US.C. 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Borland in view of Morgan, Bryan et al.; "Microsoft Visual J++ Unleased"; 1997; Sams.net Publishing; 840 pages (hereinafter "Morgan"). Claims 3, 27, and 53 stand rejected under 35 US.C. 103(a)asbeingobviousoverthecombination ofBorlandinview ofUS.PatentNo. 5,895,476 to Orr ("hereinafter "Orr"). In response, Patent Owner respectfully traverses.
Arbitrary Object Called by Name Only
Independent Claims 1 and 26 recite "arbitrary objects." Among other attributes, arbitrary objects may be called by name only, that is, with or without parameters, because there is no need to explicitly pass parameters (see, e.g., col. 5, lines 43-56), or even a three letter extension appended to a name, such as .GIF or .lPG, even if one or more parameters are required to execute the arbitrary object. Furthermore, in a Markman Order (copy appended herewith) concerning the interpretation of an arbitrary object, US. District Judge Richard Seeborg held that an arbitrary object is "an object ... that may be, but need not be, accessed solely by name ...." (page 17, line 25 -page 18, line 2).
In clear contrast to arbitrary objects, prior art object-oriented systems, such as Borland, utilize "classic" objects (e.g., functions or procedures). By way of background, Borland references Delphi which was a developmental platform for programmers to develop applications in the Pascal computer language. Pascal is a computer language invented in France, and brought to the US by a French Citizen, Philippe Khan, who moved to California, and founded Borland. Pascal has always been the flagship development language of Borland. Pascal was not originally an object-oriented computer language, but when Delphi was created, Borland modified Pascal to be object-oriented and called it "Object Pascal." All objects developed within Delphi are written in Object Pascal. If parameters are required to execute such objects, then the correct parameters must be passed when the object is called and hence cannot be called by name only. By way of example, but not limitation, Borland at pages 12-12 to 12-14, in the section entitled "Calling Procedures with Parameters" depicts a LoadFromFile method which is declared in a TStrings object as:
procedure LoadFromFile (const FileName: string);
Borland continues: " ... When you call the LoadFromFile method, you specify which file you want loaded by specifying a string as the FileName parameter. This code would read the MYFILE.TXT file into the lines of a memo control:"
Memol.Lines.LoadFromFile ('MYFILE.TXT');
From the foregoing, it is clear that Borland requires a parameter when an object (e.g., the procedure in the above example) is called. Ifthe Borland object were called without the FileName parameter, it would fail. In clear contrast to Borland, ifthe above procedure were an arbitrary object, it could be successfully called without specifying a FileName parameter, such as MYFILE.TXT.
In addition to the foregoing, the caller of a Borland object must also know what to expect in return (which would be nothing in the case ofprocedures; only functions return anything). Accordingly, it can be appreciated that such objects recited in Borland are not arbitrary objects, but may be referred to as "classic" objects (see also the '744 Patent, col. 5, line 62 -col. 6, line 5).
Interchangeability, or Swappability, ofArbitrary Objects
Because, according to principles ofthe '744 Patent, arbitrary objects may be called by name only, arbitrary objects of any type can also be readily replaced with another arbitrary object of another type, i.e., arbitrary objects are interchangeable, or swappable, with each other, regardless oftype. This understanding of arbitrary objects in independent Claims 1 and 26 is supported in the specification at, e.g., col. 3, line 58 -col. 4, line 6, col. 4, lines 39-42, and col. 6, lines 13-20. Furthermore, in a Markman Order (copy appended herewith) concerning the interpretation of an arbitrary object, u.s. District Judge Richard Seeborg held that "Arbitrary objects, therefore, must be interchangeable ... " (page 15, line 15; see also, page 17, line 25 Âpage18,line2). Theswappability ofarbitraryobjectsregardless oftypeisstillmoreexplicitly recited in dependent Claims 22 and 44.
In clear contrast to the interchangeability or swappability of arbitrary obj ects, because prior art object-oriented systems, such as Borland and Morgan utilize "classic" objects which cannot be called by name only, and require the passing ofparameters and knowing what to expect in return, objects are not interchangeable or swappable with other objects of different types. Rather, Borland replaces one object type in a project with another object ofthe same type. Form objects, function objects, and content objects are all "swapped" (i.e., added or removed) to and from a project, but that is not the same as, e.g., swapping a form object for a content object or a function object. Morgan does not cure this deficiency ofBorland, but is rather similar to Borland in that it also integrates different types of objects into a given application to provide functionality. That is, a form object or content object can be used in functionality, but again, that is not the same as swapping content object of form object for a functional object.
Conclusion
In view ofthe foregoing, it is apparent that none of the cited references, either singularly or in any combination, teach, suggest, or render obvious the unique combination now recited in independent Claims 1 and 26 that arbitrary objects may be called by name only and that one arbitrary object is interchangeable, or swappable" with arbitrary objects of different types. It is therefore respectfully submitted that Claims 1and 26 clearly and precisely distinguish over the cited references in a patentable sense, and are therefore allowable over those references and the
remaining references of record. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of Claims 1 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Borland, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borland in view ofMorgan, be withdrawn and that the patentability of Claims 1 and 26 be confirmed.
Claims 2-25 and 27-53 depend from and further limit independent Claims 1 and 26, in a patentable sense, and, for this reason and the reasons set forth above, are also deemed to be patentable. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that dependent Claims 2-25 and 27-53 be confirmed as patentable, as well.
New Claims
New independent Claims 54 and 55 have been added, representing granted Claims 1 and 26, respectively, amended to include the limitations of Claims 22 and 44, respectively, and thereby add no new matter to the application. For the reason that Claims 54 and 55 further limit independent Claims 1 and 26, in a patentable sense, and for the further reasons set forth above, Claims 54 and 55 are also deemed to be patentable. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that independent Claims 54 and 55 also be confirmed as patentable.
Closing Remarks
Patent Owner has now made an earnest attempt to show that all claims ofthe '744 Patent are valid and patentable. Therefore, with appreciative acknowledgement of Examiner Nalven's confirmation of Claims 6, 8, 19, 30, 32, 41, 50, and 51, Patent Owner respectfully requests, for the reasons set forth herein and for other reasons clearly apparent, confirmation ofthe patentability of Claims 1-5,7,9-11,18,21-29,31,33,40,44-49, and 52-55 so that a timely Certificate of Confirmation may be issued in this case.
Required fees for new independent Claims 54 and 55 are submitted herewith. The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any required fees due (other than issue fees), and to credit any overpayment made, in connection with the filing ofthis paper, to Deposit Account No. 50-2032 ofScheef & Stone, L.L.P..
Should the Examiner have any questions or desire clarification of any sort, or deem that any further amendment is desirable to place this application in condition for allowance, the Examiner is invited to telephone the undersigned at the number listed below.
Respectfully submitted, SCHEEF & STONE, L.L.P. /Jack D. Stone, Jr./
(214) 706-4207 Fax: (214) 706-4242 jack.stone@solidcounsel.com ">
It looks like the server is down for the VCSY Board on RAGING BULL
courtesy of JohnyQuan on Ragging Bull PACER INFO:
BIJAL V. VAKIL (Cal. Bar No. 192878)
bvakil@whitecase.com
NOAH A. BRUMFIELD (Cal. Bar No. 203653)
nbrumfield@whitecase.com
JENNIFER P. GOSSAIN (Cal. Bar No. 254174)
jgossain@whitecase.com
THOMAS C. FLYNN (Cal. Bar No. 257945)
tflynn@whitecase.com
WHITE & CASE LLP
5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: 650.213.0300
Facsimile: 650.213.8158
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant
Interwoven, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
INTERWOVEN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendant.
No. 3:10-cv-4645-RS
AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING
ORDER
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Northern District of California Local
Rule 16-9, Plaintiff Interwoven, Inc. (“Interwovenâ€) and Defendant Vertical Computer Systems,
Inc. (“Verticalâ€) submit the following Amended Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement.
The parties conducted teleconferences and exchanged proposals during the week of February 20,
2012, and filed a Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement on February 23, 2012 in advance
of the case management conference then scheduled for March 1, 2012. See Dkt. No. 98. That case
management conference was subsequently rescheduled for May 24, 2012. See Dkt. Nos. 101, 102.
2 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 10-CV-4645-RS
Counsel for the parties conducted a further teleconference on May 11, 2012 to discuss filing this
amended statement. Bijal Vakil, and Thomas Flynn participated in these conferences on behalf of
Interwoven. Vasilios Dossas participated on behalf of Vertical.
1. Jurisdiction and Service
This Court has jurisdiction over this case under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35
of the United States Code, with a specific remedy sought based upon the laws authorizing actions
for declaratory judgment in the federal courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a),
and 2201. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. Interwoven served
Vertical with its complaint for declaratory judgment on November 17, 2010. Vertical served
Interwoven with its counterclaim for patent infringement on February 22, 2011.
2. Facts
Interwoven is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Interwoven
has a principal place of business at 160 East Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95l34. Interwoven filed
this declaratory judgment action against Vertical on October 14, 2010.
Vertical is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of
business at 101 W. Renner Road, Richardson, Texas 75082. Vertical asserts that it is the owner of
United States Patent Nos. 6,826,744 (the “’744 Patentâ€) and 7,716,629 (the “’629 Patentâ€)
(collectively, the “Patents-In-Suitâ€).
Interwoven filed this action in the Northern District of California on October 14, 2010. On
November 15, 2010, Vertical filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas (the “Vertical Actionâ€) alleging that Interwoven, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA Inc., and LG Electronics Inc.
infringe the Patents-In-Suit. Interwoven and the Samsung parties moved to dismiss, stay, or
transfer that case to the Northern District of California. Interwoven’s motion to dismiss was
granted as to Interwoven on May 10, 2011. Samsung’s motion was denied on May 10, 2011. The
3 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 10-CV-4645-RS
Vertical Action remains pending in the Eastern District of Texas against the LG and Samsung
parties.
3. Legal Issues
Plaintiff’s Statement: The principal legal issues in this case are the invalidity of the
Patents-In-Suit and the non-infringement of the Patents-In-Suit by Interwoven’s products as well as
the relevant prior art and inequitable conduct. Interwoven filed a declaratory judgment suit against
Vertical on October 14, 2010. Interwoven contends that the Patents-In-Suit are invalid under 35
U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, and unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct before the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTOâ€). Vertical then filed a counterclaim for patent
infringement. Vertical purports to be the owner of the Patents-In-Suit and has asserted in the
Vertical Action and in this case that Interwoven infringes these patents. Interwoven contends that
its products do not infringe literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Interwoven, therefore,
asserts that it is entitled to a declaration that the Patents-In-Suit are invalid, unenforceable, and/or
not infringed by Interwoven, and that Vertical is not entitled to damages for patent infringement or
to any other form of relief. Interwoven asserts this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
that Interwoven is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs. Interwoven also denies any concealment of
its publicly available products.
Requests for reexamination of both of the Patents-In-Suit were filed on January 6, 2012, and
a revised reexamination request for the ’629 Patent, correcting a typographical error, was filed on
February 3, 2012. The request for reexamination of the ’744 Patent asked the PTO to reexamine
claims 1-11, 18-19, 21, 23-33, 40-41, and 45-53, which are the only claims of the ’744 Patent
asserted against Interwoven in this action. The order granting reexamination of the ’744 Patent
issued on February 16, 2012, and a first office action issued on April 18, 2012. The first office
action rejected all but 8 of the 37 claims asserted in this litigation and for which reexamination was
requested, including both independent claims. The request for reexamination of the ’629 Patent
asked the PTO to reexamine claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-26, and 28-32, which are the only claims of
the ’629 Patent asserted against Interwoven in this action. The corrected request seeking
4 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 10-CV-4645-RS
reexamination of the ’629 Patent was received on March 5, 2012, and an order granting
reexamination issued on March 29, 2012. There has not yet been a first office action in the
reexamination of the’629 Patent.
Defendant’s Statement: Vertical contends that Interwoven manufactures, makes, uses,
sells and/or offers for sale software such as the Interwoven TeamSite product that infringes at least
claims 1-11, 18-19, 21, 23-33, 40-41 and 45-53 of the '744 Patent and 1-6, 8-17, 19-26 and 28-32 of
the '629 Patent. Interwoven has also induced others to infringe and/or has contributorily infringed
those claims of the '744 and '629 Patents. Vertical contends that Interwoven intentionally
concealed its infringement of the '744 Patent and that Interwoven continues to infringe the '744 and
'629 Patents. Accordingly, Interwoven is a willful infringer of the '744 and '629 Patents. Thus, this
case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285, and Vertical is entitled to multiplication of its damages,
up to three times, and to its attorneys' fees and costs. Vertical also seeks a permanent injunction.
Vertical did not file a patent owner's statement in response to Interwoven's reexamination
petitions and allowed the Patent Office to issue an office action without the benefit of Vertical's
rebuttal. Even so, the Patent Office, in the first office action for the '744 patent reexamination,
confirmed the patentability of claims 6, 8, 19, 30, 32, 41, 50 and 51, did not reexamine claims 12-17,
20, 34-39 and 42-43, and rejected claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 18, 21-29, 31, 33, 40, 44-47 and 53. Thus,
some of the asserted claims have already survived reexamination even before Vertical has had a
chance to reply. And, it is axiomatic that Vertical need only prove infringement of only one claim
of a patent-in-suit to prove infringement of that patent. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 836
F.2d 1329, 1330, fn.1 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
4. Motions
On January 24, 2011, the Court denied Vertical’s motion to transfer or dismiss Dkt. No. 8,
filed December 7, 2010, and denied Interwoven’s motion to enjoin, Dkt. No. 16, filed December 10,
2010. See Dkt. No. 35. On May 2, 2011, the Court denied as moot Vertical’s motion to dismiss
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and denied Vertical’s renewed motion to transfer (Dkt. No. 38),
filed February 3, 2011. See Dkt. No. 54. The Court conducted a Markman hearing on December 14,
5 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 10-CV-4645-RS
2011, and issued its Markman order on December 30, 2012. See Dkt. Nos. 81, 83. Interwoven
filed a Motion to Stay this case pending the completion of the reexamination of the Patents-In-Suit
on January 8, 2012. The Court denied that motion on March 8, 2012.
Vertical filed a motion for entry of its proposed protective order on April 24, 2012, which
the Court referred to Magistrate Judge Spero. Interwoven opposed Vertical’s motion on May 8,
2012, and requested that the Court enter Interwoven’s proposed protective order instead. Vertical
filed a reply in support of its motion on May 15, 2012. This motion is set for hearing on June 1,
2012.
(a) Plaintiff’s Statement: Interwoven anticipates that it will file motions for summary
judgment on the issues of invalidity, non-infringement, and unenforceability due to
inequitable conduct in an effort to streamline this action and promote judicial economy.
(b) Defendant’s Statement: Vertical anticipates that it may file a motion for summary
judgment that the Patents-In-Suit are not unenforceable due to alleged inequitable
conduct.
5. Amendment of Pleadings
No supplement needed.
6. Evidence Preservation
No supplement needed.
7. Disclosures
The parties served initial disclosures on May 26, 2011.
8. Discovery
Discovery is ongoing. The parties have exchanged written discovery and have made initial
and supplemental productions of documents. There have been no depositions noticed or taken. No
expert witnesses have been identified by either side, or engaged by either of the parties. Document
production is not yet complete. The parties have not yet agreed on a protective order in this case,
and in the meantime have been operating under Patent L.R. 2-2 which governs confidentiality in the
absence of a Court order.
6 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 10-CV-4645-RS
Vertical and Interwoven agree that they should be permitted to amend, respectively, their
infringement contentions and invalidity contentions. Amendment is proper at this stage under
Patent L.R. 3-6. Interwoven believes amendment is proper because (1) certain constructions
adopted in the Court’s December 30, 2011 Markman order differ from those proposed by the
parties, and because (2) Interwoven has located additional prior art not discovered in its prior,
diligent search. Vertical believes amendment is proper because it has not yet reviewed certain
highly confidential Interwoven technical information, including the TeamSite source code, or taken
the deposition of any technical witnesses for Interwoven. The parties propose dates for their
amended contentions in Section 16, below.
9. Class Actions
This is not a class action.
10. Related Cases
The following cases are related:
ï‚•ï€ Interwoven Inc. v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-04645-RS, filed
October 14, 2011 (the “Interwoven Actionâ€); and
ï‚•ï€ Vertical Computer Systems Inc. v. Interwoven, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-00490 (E.D.
Tex.), filed November 15, 2010 (the “Vertical Actionâ€).
11. Relief
No supplement needed.
12. Settlement and ADR
The parties participated in court sponsored meditation with mediator Beth H. Parker on July
21, 2011, but failed to resolve the dispute. The parties are amenable to participating in additional
court sponsored mediation, including additional mediation with Ms. Parker. The parties propose
holding further settlement conferences, as indicated in the proposed scheduling below.
13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes
No supplement needed.
7 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 10-CV-4645-RS
14. Other References
No supplement needed.
15. Narrowing of Issues
No supplement needed.
16. Scheduling
The parties have not agreed on the dates for the remaining events in this case. In the
following table, they propose their schedules for the remaining events in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules and Patent Local Rules.
EVENT INTERWOVEN’S
PROPOSED DATES
VERTICAL’S
PROPOSED DATES
Status Conference May 24, 2012 May 24, 2012
Final Infringement Contentions August 3, 2012 August 17, 2012
Final Invalidity Contentions September 17, 2012 August 17, 2012
Patent holder to serve willfulness documents September 17, 2012 August 17, 2012
Alleged infringer to serve opinion of counsel October 1, 2012 August 17, 2012
First Mediation No later than 45 days after
May 24, 2012 Status
Conference (July 9, 2012)
By August 17, 2012
Close of Fact Discovery November 16, 2012 September 21, 2012
Opening Expert Reports February 15, 2012 October 19, 2012
Rebuttal Expert Reports April 15, 2012 November 16, 2012
Close of Expert Discovery June 15, 2013 December 21, 2012
Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions August 2, 2013 December 28, 2012
Second Mediation 30 days after completion of
briefing on dispositive
motions
By December 28, 2012
Pretrial Conference September 20, 2013
(Subject to Court’s
schedule)
January 25, 2013
(Subject to Court's
schedule)
Trial (To be determined; subject
to Court’s schedule)
(To be determined;
subject to Court's
schedule)
8 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 10-CV-4645-RS
17. Trial
The case will be tried to a jury. Interwoven expects trial will last 7 days. Vertical expects
trial will last 5 days.
18. Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons
Interwoven filed its “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons†on February 7, 2011.
Vertical filed its “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons†on May 12, 2011.
Dated: May 17, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Bijal V. Vakil
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Interwoven, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Vasilios Dossas
Attorneys for Defendant
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc..
ATTESTATION CLAUSE
I, Bijal V. Vakil, hereby attest in accordance with General Order No. 45.X that Vasilios D.
Dossas, Counsel for Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. has provided his concurrence with the
electronic filing of the foregoing document entitled AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER.
Dated: May 17, 2012
WHITE & CASE LLP
By: /s/ Bijal V. Vakil
Bijal V. Vakil
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
INTERWOVEN, INC.
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document114 Filed05/17/12 Page8 of 9
9 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. 10-CV-4645-RS
Pursuant to the above Amended Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ___________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Large volume and I don't see any short on Wednesday 5/9/2012 (maybe I'm missing something)
http://regsho.finra.org/FORFshvol20120509.txt
courtesy of Smoothsailing Raging Bull #321171
Request for Judicial Notice Re: US Patent No 7,716,629 filed by Interwoven, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - USPTO Order Granting Reexamination of US Patent No 7,716,629)(Vakil, Bijal) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
courtesy of dabbler3248 on raging bull:
THIS is the best part of that article and I would think that ANY true VCSY shareholder would be very happy to see it. imo
The court was not persuaded by Interwoven’s arguments that the reexamination would result in a simplification of issues. The court noted that 66% of the time a reexamination will result in amendment and that between 11-12% of the time all claims are cancelled. However, the court noted that Interwoven filed ex parte reexamination requests, and not inter partes reexamination requests:
Unlike inter partes reexaminations which “are guaranteed to finally resolve at least some issues of validity because the requesting party is barred from seeking district court review on any grounds that it could have raised in reexamination,†no such estoppel arises from ex parte reexaminations. . . . Consequently, the only way Interwoven’s requested reexaminations will resolve invalidity issues is if the PTO cancels the claims in their entirety, of which there is only a 12% chance.
http://www.reexamlink.com/2012/03/declaratory-judgment-plaintiff-and-stays-pending-reexamination/#more-628
What would be nice now is some direction from Judge Seeborg (either up or down)
yes if you have made arrangements to take the loss for tax purposes. Other than that I don't know of any
That posting was a copy of a private message that was sent to me by a person on the GMND board. I thought it should be made public (to the BUGS shareholders, if there are still any). I have no contact with anyone at green mountain. If you wish to pursue this trying doing it through the GMND Bulletin board. I understand your frustration but there is nothing I can do except pass on whatever info I get. good luck to you
As I said the chances are slim, but if the judge grants it it would be a big event
It sounds good to me also. The big Prize will be how he (judge Seeborg) rules on the injunction. I think the chances are slim he will grant it, but if he does that will big a big event for VCSY
courtesy of jonnyQuan on raging bull:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
INTERWOVEN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
No. C 10-04645 RS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STAY PENDING
REEXAMINATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Interwoven moves to stay all judicial proceedings pending the outcome of an ex
parte reexamination of the two patents-in-suit. Interwoven insists a stay is warranted because
defendant appears unprepared to litigate, a reexamination will likely modify the relevant issues, and
no undue burden will result. Defendant Vertical objects, contending a stay would impose
unreasonable delay without adequate assurances of meaningful simplification. It further argues that
Interwoven’s request is simply a dilatory tactic which will disadvantage Vertical insofar as
meaningful discovery will be more difficult as time passes and the alleged infringement will
continue in the interim. As there is little evidence a stay will either streamline or benefit the
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document102 Filed03/08/12 Page1 of 7
NO. C 10-4645 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
litigation, Interwoven’s motion is denied. This matter is appropriate for resolution without oral
argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
II. BACKGROUND FACTS
A. Procedural History
Vertical, a publicly-held provider of Internet technologies, owns the two patents-in-suit,
United States Patent Nos. 6,826,744 (the ’744 Patent) and 7,716,629 (the ’629 Patent). In an effort
to enforce its patent rights, Vertical brought an action against Microsoft Corporation in the Eastern
District of Texas. After settling with Microsoft in January 2009, Vertical informed Interwoven that
it believed the company’s TeamSite products were also infringing Vertical’s patents. After months
of failed negotiations between the companies, Interwoven filed suit for declaratory judgment in this
Court. Vertical contends that throughout these negotiations, Interwoven concealed information
regarding the infringing product and purposefully delayed Vertical’s investigations. Interwoven
disputes these accusations, insisting it was Vertical who delayed initiating prosecution and neglected
to complete its due diligence before making unfounded allegations.
Since the inception of this lawsuit, Interwoven has amended its complaint and Vertical has
answered with a counterclaim for patent infringement. The parties have also begun discovery, fully
briefed the issue of claim construction, and participated in a Markman hearing. Following this
hearing, the Court issued a claim construction order largely rejecting Interwoven’s limiting
arguments and construing most of the contested terms according to their plain and ordinary
meanings. Interwoven subsequently filed a request for ex parte reexamination of both patents-insuit
on January 6, 2012. The PTO granted reexamination of the ’744 Patent, but has yet to
determine whether to institute reexamination of the ’629 Patent. Interwoven moves to stay these
proceedings pending the outcome of reexamination.
B. Relevant Facts
Both patents at issue concern an innovative method for interfacing program units through the
use of “arbitrary objects.†The ’629 patent was issued from a continuation of the ’744 patent
application. After purchasing these patent rights, Vertical developed and began selling a product
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document102 Filed03/08/12 Page2 of 7
NO. C 10-4645 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
called “SiteFlash†which incorporated the patents’ technology. Vertical maintains “SiteFlash†was
exceedingly successful until direct competitors, such as Interwoven, began infringing the patents-insuit.
This infringement allegedly diverted sales and profits from Vertical and drove “SiteFlash†out
of the market. Vertical explains that Interwoven, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Autonomy
Corporation plc, a subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard Company, specifically infringed the patents with
its product, “TeamSite.†Vertical claims it learned of Interwoven’s infringement after investigating
the company’s products and reading “The Definitive Guide to Interwoven Teamsite.†Interwoven
contests this book’s credibility and denies any patent infringement. To this effect, it filed suit
seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement of Vertical’s two
patents.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The decision to stay a patent case in the midst of a PTO reexamination rests within a court’s
discretion. See Viskase Corp. v. Am. Nat’l Can Co., 261 F.3d 1316, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A court
is certainly not required to stay judicial resolution in light of a pending patent reexamination. Id. A
stay may be useful, however, where the outcome of the reexamination would assist the court in
determining patent validity and, if the claims were canceled in the reexamination, would eliminate
the need to try the infringement issue. See, e.g., Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1342
(Fed. Cir. 1983) (“One purpose of the reexamination procedure is to eliminate trial of that issue
(when the claim is canceled) or to facilitate trial of that issue by providing the district court with the
expert view of the PTO (when a claim survives the reexamination proceeding).â€). In the
reexamination context, district courts in the Ninth Circuit have relied on the following three factors
to ascertain the appropriateness of a stay: (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a
clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in
question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has
been set. In re Cygnus Telecom. Tech., LLC Patent Litig., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal.
2005) (citing Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d 404, 406 (W.D.N.Y. 1999)); ASCII Corp.
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document102 Filed03/08/12 Page3 of 7
NO. C 10-4645 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
v. STD Entm’t. USA, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1378, 1380 (N.D. Cal. 1994). Taken together, these factors
weigh against a stay.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Undue Prejudice or Tactical Disadvantage
Vertical insists granting a stay would merely impose unreasonable delay and create undue
prejudice. It further impugns plaintiff’s motion as a dilatory tactic designed to prolong the alleged
infringing behavior. Specifically, Vertical emphasizes that Interwoven waited a year and three
months into litigation to file for reexamination, only doing so after receiving the Court’s claim
construction order. This order notably rejected most of Interwoven’s arguments, construing the
majority of disputed terms according to their plain and ordinary meanings. That Interwoven waited
until after receiving an unfavorable ruling to request reexamination lends credence to Vertical’s
contention that the current motion is simply a delaying strategy. See Tokuyama Corp. v. Vision
Dynamics, LLC, No. C 08-2781SBA, 2008 WL 4452118, *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2008)
(distinguishing cases, for purposes of assessing undue prejudice, where a party requests
reexamination only after receiving an unfavorable ruling by the court); Fresenius Med. Care
Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Intern., Inc., No. C 03-1431 SBA, 2007 WL 1655625, *6 (N.D. Cal. June 7,
2007); see also Esco Corp. v. Berkeley Forge & Tool, Inc., No. 09-1635, 2009 WL 3078463, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2009) (finding prejudice existed where defendants waited five months to file for
reexamination and did so after experiencing a halt in settlement negotiations). Interwoven’s
assertion that it waited until after claim construction in order to avoid filing multiple reexaminations
is unpersuasive. The PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest interpretation at reexamination
regardless of the judicially imposed construction. See In re Am. Acad. of Science Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is error for the Board to ‘appl[y] the mode of claim
interpretation that is used by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents in
connection with determinations of infringement and validity.â€â€™ (quoting In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321 (Fed. Cir. 1989))). Such evidence weighs against granting plaintiff’s motion.
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document102 Filed03/08/12 Page4 of 7
NO. C 10-4645 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
The parties’ status as direct competitors also weighs against a stay because it increases the
likelihood of undue prejudice. See Avago Tech. Fiber IP(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. IPtronics Inc., No.
10–CV–02863–EJD, 2011 WL 3267768, at *16-*17 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2011) (“[E]ven ‘ordinary’
competition can justify denial of a stay when that competition is based on alleged infringement and
has effects that would be difficult to reverse after the fact.â€). Vertical argues that it was forced to
take “SiteFlash†off the market due to the infringement of competitors such as Interwoven. If
Vertical’s allegations are true, and Interwoven is permitted to prolong such infringement pending
reexamination, Vertical will continue to lose profits and sales. Admittedly, delay by itself does not
necessarily constitute undue prejudice, as nearly every judicial stay involves delay. See, e.g.,
Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“[T]he likely
length of reexamination is not, in itself, evidence of undue prejudice . . . .â€). Yet, as discussed
above, Interwoven’s election to wait until after claim construction to seek reexamination raises the
inference that the timing of the current request is tactically driven. Id. at 1111 (denying motion to
stay because reexamination delay placed plaintiff at tactical disadvantage).
Furthermore, there is evidence to support Vertical’s fear that it will not only be financially
disadvantaged, but also strategically prejudiced by a stay. Evidence, witness availability, and
memory concerning the pertinent timeframe will likely become more stale and difficult to retrieve as
time passes. In short, adding additional years onto a case already past the claim construction stage
is unreasonable and would place Vertical at a tactical disadvantage.
B. Simplification of the Issues
The second factor considers whether reexamination will significantly simplify or streamline
the litigation. Emphasizing that the primary issues for litigation are patent validity and claim
construction, Interwoven contends that no matter what the results of reexamination, they will likely
simplify litigation. Specifically, it insists the outcome of reexamination will eliminate the need for
complex discovery, dispositive motion practice, or another round of infringement and invalidity
contentions. Interwoven provides little support for this proposition or for its hypothetical list of
benefits. In fact, the evidence contradicts Interwoven, suggesting that simplification of issues is
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document102 Filed03/08/12 Page5 of 7
NO. C 10-4645 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
unlikely to result. According to the parties’ statistics, during reexamination the PTO cancels all
claims in a patent between 11% and 12% of the time. Alternatively, it amends claims about 66% of
the time. Naturally, Interwoven emphasizes both of these numbers, recognizing there is a greater
than 75% chance the claims will either be modified or canceled. The potential for modification,
however, lends little support to Interwoven’s argument, especially as it relates to the simplification
of infringement issues. This is because Interwoven filed motions for ex parte, not inter partes,
reexaminations. Unlike inter partes reexaminations which “are guaranteed to finally resolve at least
some issues of validity because the requesting party is barred from seeking district court review on
any grounds that it could have raised reexamination,†no such estoppel arises from ex parte
reexaminations. Avago Tech. Fiber IP(Singapore) Pte. Ltd., 2011 WL 3267768, at *4.
Consequently, the only way Interwoven’s requested reexaminations will resolve invalidity issues is
if the PTO cancels the claims in their entirety, of which there is only a 12% chance. Id. (refusing to
grant a stay because simplification is unlikely when the likelihood of PTO cancellation was low).
Interwoven has not persuasively demonstrated that the results of reexamination will streamline the
litigation such that a stay would be helpful.
C. Procedural Posture of the Instant Case
The case is not, as defendants insist, in its infancy. Discovery is well underway and the
parties are working towards an agreeable protective order. They have exchanged documents,
excepting source code, served interrogatories and document requests, and responded to each other’s
requests and interrogatories. More importantly, the parties have fully briefed the issue of claim
construction, attended a Markman hearing, and received a claim construction order. See Largan
Precision Co. Ltd. v. Fujifilm Corp., No. C 10-1318 SBA, 2011 WL 794983, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
1, 2011); Yodlee Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd., Nos. C-06-07222 SBA, 2009 WL 112857, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan.
16, 2009) (“The relevant inquiry here is the stage of the litigation, and the fact that no Markman
hearing has occurred simply means that the case is less, rather than more, advanced.â€); Research in
Motion Ltd. v. Visto Corp., 545 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1012 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (granting a stay because
Case3:10-cv-04645-RS Document102 Filed03/08/12 Page6 of 7
Renee what do you think of post 13418 on bugs message board
To all current BUGS shareholders this is a PM I recieved from a GMND shareholder
"Once again, sorry for your loss. You must not be left behind when the million start rolling in to GMND from microbial sales. you waited this long only to see your stock stop trading and NOW the sales are going to explode.
I would demand that you get your piece of the action. I am not an idiot. i do not give a rats ass if you guys lost every penny you invested if that will hurt GMND price per share! Yet, it is only fair that you get at least a dividend( lets say shareholder of record going back one year in BUGS) restricted for one year. That would probably be somewhat acceptable to GMND shareholders as well, even though they have no obligation to do so.
To make claims( some not you) that Bob is only taking the royalty money for himself and not giving it to BUGS was insane as it does not matter of BUGS is public or private then. What conflict of interest is there when he owns more than 50% of the OS of BUGS??
The same with GMND."
If you guys think this is such a great company and CEO why do you have such an elaborate hold harmless clause prominently displayed (in BOLD RED) just above the posting area?
TRANSLATION:
I have taken the company Private without buying any of your shares.
I now control all the intellectual property, so go to Hell and have a nice day
well, we definitely have two completely different points of view
from your own message board:
"This iBox, forum, and board (collectively, "Board") contains information acquired from various sources, adjusted for formatting into the Board, and presented for investors to review and analyze for themselves. No licensed brokers or investment professionals created, reviewed, revised, or approved any of the information on this Board. Each investor must complete (and finds themself responsible) for their own due diligence on this security. Accordingly, each investor takes full responsiblity for the performance and possession of any shares one purchased or might purchase. The moderator and assistant moderators on this board are admittedly - and in the interest of full disclosure - rank amatuers. We do NOT vouch for, confirm, or endorse any information on the Board. Thus, place any reliance on what we write at your own peril. YOU are the only person responsible for your losses, gains, and/or claims pertaining in any way to this security.
CONSIDER YOURSELF SO NOTICED"
This is the guy running GMND
BUGSU.S. Microbics Common Stock / Status : Suspended Grey Market OTC Markets has discontinued the display of quotes on www.otcmarkets.com for this security because it has been labeled Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware) and because adequate current information has not been made available by the issuer of the securities. It has been labeled Caveat Emptor for one of the following reasons:
¦Questionable Promotion — The security is being promoted to the public, but adequate current information about the issuer has not been made available to the public.
¦Spam — The security is the subject of spam promotion having the effect of encouraging trading of the issuer's securities.
¦Investigation of Fraud — There is a known investigation of fraudulent activity involving the company, its securities or insiders.
¦Suspension/Halt — A Regulatory Authority has halted or suspended trading for public interest concerns (i.e. not a news or earning halt).
¦Disruptive Corporate Actions — The security or issuer is the subject of corporate actions, such as reverse mergers or serial stocks splits and name changes, without adequate current information being publicly available.
¦Unsolicited Quotes — The security has only been quoted on an unsolicited basis since it entered the public markets and the issuer has not made adequate current information available to the public.
¦Other Public Interest Concern — There is, in OTC Markets' view, a public interest concern.
Consequently, OTC Markets has removed the quotes from this website until adequate current information is made available by the issuer pursuant to OTC Markets Group's Guidelines for Providing Adequate Current Information (PDF) and until OTC Markets believes there is no longer a public interest concern. Investors are encouraged to use care and due diligence in their investment decisions. Please read our Investor Protection page for more information.
From the OTC website
Nick Kontonicolas is no johnny come lately to BUGS.
Credits for the following go to harvard_88 from investorshub:
BUGS/Honduras: SSWM and C. TradeUsa to JV Water Project in Honduras; Companies to Provide Pure Drinking Water for the Citizens of Honduras
Business Wire, July 28, 2004
CARLSBAD, Calif. -- Bruce Beattie, president of Sub Surface Waste Management of Delaware Inc. (OTCBB:SSWM), announced today that it will joint venture with C. TradeUsa Inc., a water systems integrator, to provide pure drinking water for the citizens of Honduras in conjunction with ADECO -- the Association for Community Development -- a registered non-governmental organization (NGO) in Honduras. The companies will be using the PureSafe Water Station technology supplied by WaterChef Inc. (OTCBB:WTER), a water purification equipment vendor. ADECO has contracted with the individual municipalities (of which there are 332) to co-venture to provide pure drinking water for the citizens of Honduras. ADECO is a not-for-profit social development organization with over 13 years of successful program management. ADECO has selected WaterChef's patented PureSafe Water Station as the water purification system to be utilized. SSWM and C. TradeUSA will purchase the equipment and supply it to ADECO on a lease-buy basis. C. Trade Inc. has over ten years' successful experience in initiating and operating "B-O-T" (build, operate and transfer) projects in China and Honduras, and will utilize this experience to assure a successful launch in the potentially lucrative Latin America market. C. Trade also has existing distribution networks in Bangladesh, Venezuela, Greece and Colombia, and believes these to be fertile markets for the sale of water. Mr. Nick Kontonicolas stated, "We are very excited about our continued progress working with BUGS, SSWM, and our client WaterChef, Inc. We hope to keep testing and integrating our respective patented technologies to bring about continuous and steady revenues and growth."Robert Brehm, CEO of BUGS, stated, "I am pleased with our association with C. Trade and look forward to proving biotechnology products and services which complement and fulfill the needs to have pure water to drink, clean soil to grow food, and healthy agriculture crops to reduce hunger in Third World countries. Our unique products and services fit very well with the marketing and deployment activities of C. Trade Group."
So according to these guys BUGS (a stock that isn't trading because of SEC an investigation) is going to be receiving royaty payments from GMND
it was sent to me indicating GMND bought the rights to all of BUGS intellectual property years ago for 10 K
I don't remember that ever happening.
It is an issue because GMND is sell those products and booking the revenue on thier balance sheet
SPRT: I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know about 10 grand or transfer of ownership
Do you remember anything like this:
" If BUGS has transferred those rights years ago ( for 10 grand?)how is that a discussion on the GMND board now?
Nothing happened to those products for years and now the sales start up. Why? IMO, others have come aboard and took charge.
Same thing with all these energy deals. Congratulations to Kontonicolas for all his connections and financing, etc.
Again, BUGS public or private, good or bad, has nothing to do with the health of GMND. Especially since (your claim) no licensing fees are to be paid."
from a GMND post
GMND should be paying a royalty to BUGS. When those agents were first produced they were made by US MICROBICS. GMND did not even exist. They transferred the intellectual property (to GMND)without any kind of shareholder approval
you are absolutely right. This is the more of the same old, same old.
I posted this for the contact info at the bottom of the link (article). Not to endorse anything this guy is doing.
contact information for Mr. Brehm!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/09/idUS236520+09-Nov-2011+MW20111109
thanks for the heads up, but it's all news to me
best of luck to you.
I wish there was something more I could say
I googled this facility and this was the only article (I found) that specifically referenced ownership of this facility.
I am not familiar with EMLL or what they have done in the past.
I don't think you will get anywhere dealing with this guy
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68477724
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68477796
just as I thought, you have none!
this is the only reference I have been able to find that adresses ownership.
"EMLL could be a good one the rest of the week
EL MANIEL INTERNATIONAL INC, under its subsidiary company known as EMLL ENERGY LTD owns an oil terminal facility located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The facility wholesales energy products such as No2 heating oil and kerosene in five storage tanks with a capacity of over 2 million gallons. The oil terminal facility is officially known as the Beach Haven Terminal which is located at RT. 11 in the town of Berwick, Pennsylvania.
The facility has five above ground tanks with a storage capacity of over 2.5 million gallons serving the northeastern seaboard. Within 150 miles of the facility there are approximately 6 million homes that use heating oil. The terminal has received refined products from pipelines and barges as well as trucks and distributes them to third parties and independent heat oil companies, who deliver them to home owners and retail outlets as well as commercial outlets. The Company provides storage and inventory management, distribution and other ancillary services. The facility is equipped with top load injection, buttonlock, to trucks. The terminal has extensive pipeline connections that have been installed by Sunoco for the delivery of fuel and was part of the Sunoco's eastern pipeline system. The pipeline was operational prior to the Company's purchase of the terminal.
The Beach Haven Oil Terminal is a heating oil facility that sits on 5 acres overlooking the scenic Susquehanna River, adjacent the railroad tracks, with 5 above ground storage tanks totaling 2.5 million gallons of capacity. The terminal has extensive SUNOCO pipeline connections on site that are currently open for the delivery of fuel and is part of the SUNOCO eastern pipeline system. The pumping system is a "top load", "button lock" system. There is no debt against the facility. There are no outstanding liens or mortgages. The taxes are paid and current with Luzerne County. In addition to offering heating oil services in Luzerne County, the future of the company includes production of biodiesel to help satisfy the state's new biofuel mandate. Everyone acknowledges the need for domestically produced, renewable fuels to lessen America's dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel is a liquid fuel than can be used in a wide variety of diesel-powered vehicles without modifications to the engine. It burns cleaner with reduced emissions, promotes better fuel economy and lubricates diesel engines better than traditional diesel fuel. We believe that Pennsylvania's new biodiesel mandate will increase the use of biodiesel in Pennsylvania and will build a new sustainable industry in Pennsylvania. This oil terminal is geographically positioned to be one of the main producers for biofuel in this state."
Thanks it's always a pleasure to engage in civil discourse
I see you have done a fair amount of research.
Why don't you provide the links to verify these claims!
That will settle the matter for good.
maybe we should speak to this fellow:
"I spoke th the President of GMND, Robert Brehm last night and I can tell you if you are invested in this company you will be very happy in the weeks ahead.JMO "
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68406996
dated 10/27/2011