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.
STANDBY.....8K WILL SHOW TOMORROW
Locked up?
Haha! I will stick to reading the updates in the docket. Most concrete information we have had in a while....
I would imagine they only have the 21 days but I am not an expert...Just going by what I have read in the docket...
Looks like they are waiting until the last minute to request that extension......
Electronically issued on 9/23 according to the court docket for all four cases.
It says 21 days not including the day you receive the summons.
Watch the court dockets people... We should be seeing responses to summons any day now. The companies had 21 days to respond to summons.
Yeah... Interesting huh....i wish i still had the dumb responses....
I have asked before the Admins said they no longer support Etelgis in the news feed... Lame excuse if you ask me...
Weird... So some are showing the 867k and some are showing 430k. I was just showing 867k earlier but it quickly changed....
It must be a glitch on TD.....I am seeing the same thing..
Lets try this again 702 Million O/S..... How about we stick to facts......
They can find them on the ask!
LOL. Did the intelligence of the basher union just fall to an all time low? I can't understand anything they are saying.
I'm not, nor is anyone else worried about your baseless theories...
Maybe you need a reminder.... Our representing attorney from Farney and Daniels....
STEVEN R. DANIELS
Steven Daniels has extensive experience in patent infringement litigation and trade secret misappropriation cases on behalf of clients in a variety of industries, including cases involving wireless technology, computer software and hardware, gaming devices, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Prior to founding Farney Daniels, PC, Mr. Daniels practiced with several large, international law firms. Mr. Daniels’ experience includes advising the Korean government regarding intellectual property issues likely to arise during the negotiation of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement and providing seminars on American intellectual property law to judges and patent examiners of the Korean Intellectual Property Office and the Korean Innovators Forum.
AREAS OF PRACTICE
Intellectual Property Litigation
Business Litigation
Licensing Negotiations
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
Representing Hewlett-Packard and Acer in a suit brought by Quantum World alleging infringement by the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) used in computer security. The Quantum World Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard, Acer, Inc., and Acer America, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented PJC Logistics LLC in a multi-district litigation related to fleet management systems. In re: Vehicle Tracking and Security System (‘844) Patent Litigation.
Represented HP, Creative Labs, Lifeworks, and numerous electronics retailers in a suit involving webcams used with LCD monitors. AdjustaCam LLC v. Hewlett-Packard, Creative Labs, Lifeworks, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Monster in a suit where the plaintiff asserted infringement of a patent related to the use of XML site maps in websites. Site Update Solutions v. Monster Worldwide, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Acer in multi-patent litigation involving several areas of computer technology, including I/O systems, device drivers, and power management. Acer Inc. et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Western District of Wisconsin); In the Matter of Certain Computer Systems, Printers and Scanners (U.S. International Trade Commission)
Represented Gateway in 19-patent suit involving computer hardware and software components. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Gateway, Inc. (Southern District of California)
Representing Select Retrieval, LLC, in patent infringement litigation related to patents covering targeted search technology that has been widely adopted by internet-based businesses. Select Retrieval, LLC v. ABT, et al. (Middle District of Florida, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Texas)
Representing ORG Structure Innovation, LLC, in patent infringement litigation related to software enabling core business security processes. ORG Structure Innovation, LLC v. Oracle Corp., et al. (Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of California, Western District of Texas)
Represented Innovative Solutions in trade secret and patent litigation relating to the company’s proprietary air data avionic computers. After a four-week jury trial, the jury returned a substantial verdict in favor of ISS, later increased by the court in awarding treble damages and fees. Innovative Solutions and Support v. Kollsman, Inc., et al. (Western District of Tennessee)
Defended Gateway in 15-patent suit involving MPEG video coding, caller-ID, low bit-rate speech coders, and other computer-related technologies. Lucent Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al. (Southern District of California)
Represented patent holder GTE Wireless in a patent suit involving cell phone signal acquisition technology. GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc. (Southern District of California)
Represented Gateway and Lenovo as defendants in a patent suit relating to wireless data communications. Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Lenovo in a case alleging infringement by the trusted platform module (TPM) used in computer security. The Quantum World Corp. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Edwards Lifesciences in patent litigation relating to medical devices for heart valve replacement and repair. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. St. Jude Medical (Central District of California) and Medtronic, Inc. (District of Delaware)
Represented Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a suit involving patents related to adhesive patches used in the delivery of medication. Lectec Corp. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Molecular Biosystems in multiple patent disputes between three competitors regarding contrast media for ultrasound techniques where infringement, validity and priority were at issue. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. v. Nycomed Imaging (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia); Sonus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. (Western District of Washington)
Defended Medquist in patent case relating to medical transcription services and workflow management systems. Anthurium Solutions Inc. v. Medquist, Inc. et.al. (Eastern District of Texas)
EDUCATION
University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1995
University of North Carolina, M.A., 1992
University of New Mexico, B.A., 1987
HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS
Best Lawyers in America, 2013
The National Law Journal, “Defense Hot List,” 2007
Visiting Professor of Law, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea,
COURT ADMISSIONS
Texas
California
Georgia
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PUBLISHED WORKS AND PRESENTATIONS
eBay and Its Aftermath: Injunctions, Ongoing Royalties, and Compulsory Licensing,2 Sungkyunkwan Journal of Science & Technology Law 385 (Fall 2008)
Significant Patent Cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Korean Intellectual Property Journal (2005)
Intellectual Property Issues on the Internet, Annual Cyberlaw Institute, National Business Institute, Austin and San Antonio, Texas (June 2001)
Internet Jurisdiction, Annual Cyberlaw Institute, National Business Institute, Austin and San Antonio, Texas (June 2001)
The Ethical Care and Feeding of In-House Experts: The Protection and Discovery of the Opinions of Employees Consulted in Anticipation of Litigation, SMU Air Law Symposium, Dallas, Texas, February (1996)
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Member, State Bar of Texas
Member, State Bar of California
Member, State Bar of Georgia
http://farneydaniels.com/our-team/steven-r-daniels/
Yup....I know some of these are NC counsel for filing complaint and signing documents due to state bar issues. That why Steven Daniels had to get approved to be in the court...which he did.
Exactly!!!!!! Alarmforce should be sealed. Why fight a fight in court that you already lost at the USPTO. The patents are the exhibits for the case, the arguement and base for the infringement......
REVO!
Oh how I would love that. But the 21 day period is merely a response to Summons...it is possible to see any of this companies sign the Certification and Report Conference Discovery Plan citing settlement in lieu of a long drawn out case. All counsels will discuss this prior to the Judge moving forward in the case. So we all just need standby and watch docket action, because that will truly tell us what is happening with each case.
I think its 21 calendar days....otherwise it would have specified buisness days.
It says 21 days. I don't see anything about extensions...
If you guys want to view the dockets go to this website.....you will have to sign up but its free.. You can see all four cases and the activity...
http://search.rpxcorp.com/advanced_search/search_all#grouped=true&search_source_type=header+search&searchq=%22Eyetalk365+LLC%22&utf8=%E2%9C%93
By mid October we should see response to the summons...not necessarily a settlement....But I guess its possible...I will be checking daily for updates.
No new updates on Eyetalk365 case dockets today. Response to summons required by defendants within 21 days of reciept.
Court documents from all 4 cases verify that our representing attorney from Farney and Daniels is....
STEVEN R. DANIELS
Steven Daniels has extensive experience in patent infringement litigation and trade secret misappropriation cases on behalf of clients in a variety of industries, including cases involving wireless technology, computer software and hardware, gaming devices, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Prior to founding Farney Daniels, PC, Mr. Daniels practiced with several large, international law firms. Mr. Daniels’ experience includes advising the Korean government regarding intellectual property issues likely to arise during the negotiation of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement and providing seminars on American intellectual property law to judges and patent examiners of the Korean Intellectual Property Office and the Korean Innovators Forum.
AREAS OF PRACTICE
Intellectual Property Litigation
Business Litigation
Licensing Negotiations
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
Representing Hewlett-Packard and Acer in a suit brought by Quantum World alleging infringement by the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) used in computer security. The Quantum World Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard, Acer, Inc., and Acer America, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented PJC Logistics LLC in a multi-district litigation related to fleet management systems. In re: Vehicle Tracking and Security System (‘844) Patent Litigation.
Represented HP, Creative Labs, Lifeworks, and numerous electronics retailers in a suit involving webcams used with LCD monitors. AdjustaCam LLC v. Hewlett-Packard, Creative Labs, Lifeworks, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Monster in a suit where the plaintiff asserted infringement of a patent related to the use of XML site maps in websites. Site Update Solutions v. Monster Worldwide, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Acer in multi-patent litigation involving several areas of computer technology, including I/O systems, device drivers, and power management. Acer Inc. et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Western District of Wisconsin); In the Matter of Certain Computer Systems, Printers and Scanners (U.S. International Trade Commission)
Represented Gateway in 19-patent suit involving computer hardware and software components. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Gateway, Inc. (Southern District of California)
Representing Select Retrieval, LLC, in patent infringement litigation related to patents covering targeted search technology that has been widely adopted by internet-based businesses. Select Retrieval, LLC v. ABT, et al. (Middle District of Florida, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Texas)
Representing ORG Structure Innovation, LLC, in patent infringement litigation related to software enabling core business security processes. ORG Structure Innovation, LLC v. Oracle Corp., et al. (Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of California, Western District of Texas)
Represented Innovative Solutions in trade secret and patent litigation relating to the company’s proprietary air data avionic computers. After a four-week jury trial, the jury returned a substantial verdict in favor of ISS, later increased by the court in awarding treble damages and fees. Innovative Solutions and Support v. Kollsman, Inc., et al. (Western District of Tennessee)
Defended Gateway in 15-patent suit involving MPEG video coding, caller-ID, low bit-rate speech coders, and other computer-related technologies. Lucent Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al. (Southern District of California)
Represented patent holder GTE Wireless in a patent suit involving cell phone signal acquisition technology. GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc. (Southern District of California)
Represented Gateway and Lenovo as defendants in a patent suit relating to wireless data communications. Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Lenovo in a case alleging infringement by the trusted platform module (TPM) used in computer security. The Quantum World Corp. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Edwards Lifesciences in patent litigation relating to medical devices for heart valve replacement and repair. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. St. Jude Medical (Central District of California) and Medtronic, Inc. (District of Delaware)
Represented Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a suit involving patents related to adhesive patches used in the delivery of medication. Lectec Corp. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Molecular Biosystems in multiple patent disputes between three competitors regarding contrast media for ultrasound techniques where infringement, validity and priority were at issue. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. v. Nycomed Imaging (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia); Sonus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. (Western District of Washington)
Defended Medquist in patent case relating to medical transcription services and workflow management systems. Anthurium Solutions Inc. v. Medquist, Inc. et.al. (Eastern District of Texas)
EDUCATION
University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1995
University of North Carolina, M.A., 1992
University of New Mexico, B.A., 1987
HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS
Best Lawyers in America, 2013
The National Law Journal, “Defense Hot List,” 2007
Visiting Professor of Law, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea,
COURT ADMISSIONS
Texas
California
Georgia
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PUBLISHED WORKS AND PRESENTATIONS
eBay and Its Aftermath: Injunctions, Ongoing Royalties, and Compulsory Licensing,2 Sungkyunkwan Journal of Science & Technology Law 385 (Fall 2008)
Significant Patent Cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Korean Intellectual Property Journal (2005)
Intellectual Property Issues on the Internet, Annual Cyberlaw Institute, National Business Institute, Austin and San Antonio, Texas (June 2001)
Internet Jurisdiction, Annual Cyberlaw Institute, National Business Institute, Austin and San Antonio, Texas (June 2001)
The Ethical Care and Feeding of In-House Experts: The Protection and Discovery of the Opinions of Employees Consulted in Anticipation of Litigation, SMU Air Law Symposium, Dallas, Texas, February (1996)
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Member, State Bar of Texas
Member, State Bar of California
Member, State Bar of Georgia
http://farneydaniels.com/our-team/steven-r-daniels/
I believe its 45 days....Mid November.
Our representing attorney from Farney and Daniels for all four cases....STEVEN R. DANIELS
Steven Daniels has extensive experience in patent infringement litigation and trade secret misappropriation cases on behalf of clients in a variety of industries, including cases involving wireless technology, computer software and hardware, gaming devices, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Prior to founding Farney Daniels, PC, Mr. Daniels practiced with several large, international law firms. Mr. Daniels’ experience includes advising the Korean government regarding intellectual property issues likely to arise during the negotiation of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement and providing seminars on American intellectual property law to judges and patent examiners of the Korean Intellectual Property Office and the Korean Innovators Forum.
AREAS OF PRACTICE
Intellectual Property Litigation
Business Litigation
Licensing Negotiations
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
Representing Hewlett-Packard and Acer in a suit brought by Quantum World alleging infringement by the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) used in computer security. The Quantum World Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard, Acer, Inc., and Acer America, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented PJC Logistics LLC in a multi-district litigation related to fleet management systems. In re: Vehicle Tracking and Security System (‘844) Patent Litigation.
Represented HP, Creative Labs, Lifeworks, and numerous electronics retailers in a suit involving webcams used with LCD monitors. AdjustaCam LLC v. Hewlett-Packard, Creative Labs, Lifeworks, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Monster in a suit where the plaintiff asserted infringement of a patent related to the use of XML site maps in websites. Site Update Solutions v. Monster Worldwide, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Acer in multi-patent litigation involving several areas of computer technology, including I/O systems, device drivers, and power management. Acer Inc. et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Western District of Wisconsin); In the Matter of Certain Computer Systems, Printers and Scanners (U.S. International Trade Commission)
Represented Gateway in 19-patent suit involving computer hardware and software components. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Gateway, Inc. (Southern District of California)
Representing Select Retrieval, LLC, in patent infringement litigation related to patents covering targeted search technology that has been widely adopted by internet-based businesses. Select Retrieval, LLC v. ABT, et al. (Middle District of Florida, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Texas)
Representing ORG Structure Innovation, LLC, in patent infringement litigation related to software enabling core business security processes. ORG Structure Innovation, LLC v. Oracle Corp., et al. (Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of California, Western District of Texas)
Represented Innovative Solutions in trade secret and patent litigation relating to the company’s proprietary air data avionic computers. After a four-week jury trial, the jury returned a substantial verdict in favor of ISS, later increased by the court in awarding treble damages and fees. Innovative Solutions and Support v. Kollsman, Inc., et al. (Western District of Tennessee)
Defended Gateway in 15-patent suit involving MPEG video coding, caller-ID, low bit-rate speech coders, and other computer-related technologies. Lucent Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al. (Southern District of California)
Represented patent holder GTE Wireless in a patent suit involving cell phone signal acquisition technology. GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc. (Southern District of California)
Represented Gateway and Lenovo as defendants in a patent suit relating to wireless data communications. Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Lenovo in a case alleging infringement by the trusted platform module (TPM) used in computer security. The Quantum World Corp. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Edwards Lifesciences in patent litigation relating to medical devices for heart valve replacement and repair. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. St. Jude Medical (Central District of California) and Medtronic, Inc. (District of Delaware)
Represented Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a suit involving patents related to adhesive patches used in the delivery of medication. Lectec Corp. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Molecular Biosystems in multiple patent disputes between three competitors regarding contrast media for ultrasound techniques where infringement, validity and priority were at issue. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. v. Nycomed Imaging (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia); Sonus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. (Western District of Washington)
Defended Medquist in patent case relating to medical transcription services and workflow management systems. Anthurium Solutions Inc. v. Medquist, Inc. et.al. (Eastern District of Texas)
EDUCATION
University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1995
University of North Carolina, M.A., 1992
University of New Mexico, B.A., 1987
HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS
Best Lawyers in America, 2013
The National Law Journal, “Defense Hot List,” 2007
Visiting Professor of Law, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea,
COURT ADMISSIONS
Texas
California
Georgia
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PUBLISHED WORKS AND PRESENTATIONS
eBay and Its Aftermath: Injunctions, Ongoing Royalties, and Compulsory Licensing,2 Sungkyunkwan Journal of Science & Technology Law 385 (Fall 2008)
Significant Patent Cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Korean Intellectual Property Journal (2005)
Intellectual Property Issues on the Internet, Annual Cyberlaw Institute, National Business Institute, Austin and San Antonio, Texas (June 2001)
Internet Jurisdiction, Annual Cyberlaw Institute, National Business Institute, Austin and San Antonio, Texas (June 2001)
The Ethical Care and Feeding of In-House Experts: The Protection and Discovery of the Opinions of Employees Consulted in Anticipation of Litigation, SMU Air Law Symposium, Dallas, Texas, February (1996)
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Member, State Bar of Texas
Member, State Bar of California
Member, State Bar of Georgia
http://farneydaniels.com/our-team/steven-r-daniels/
According to Case Docket documentation Steven R. Daniels will be representing Eyetalk365 for all four cases.
Our representing attorney from Farney and Daniels....
STEVEN R. DANIELS
Steven Daniels has extensive experience in patent infringement litigation and trade secret misappropriation cases on behalf of clients in a variety of industries, including cases involving wireless technology, computer software and hardware, gaming devices, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Prior to founding Farney Daniels, PC, Mr. Daniels practiced with several large, international law firms. Mr. Daniels’ experience includes advising the Korean government regarding intellectual property issues likely to arise during the negotiation of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement and providing seminars on American intellectual property law to judges and patent examiners of the Korean Intellectual Property Office and the Korean Innovators Forum.
AREAS OF PRACTICE
Intellectual Property Litigation
Business Litigation
Licensing Negotiations
REPRESENTATIVE CASES
Representing Hewlett-Packard and Acer in a suit brought by Quantum World alleging infringement by the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) used in computer security. The Quantum World Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard, Acer, Inc., and Acer America, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented PJC Logistics LLC in a multi-district litigation related to fleet management systems. In re: Vehicle Tracking and Security System (‘844) Patent Litigation.
Represented HP, Creative Labs, Lifeworks, and numerous electronics retailers in a suit involving webcams used with LCD monitors. AdjustaCam LLC v. Hewlett-Packard, Creative Labs, Lifeworks, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Monster in a suit where the plaintiff asserted infringement of a patent related to the use of XML site maps in websites. Site Update Solutions v. Monster Worldwide, et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Acer in multi-patent litigation involving several areas of computer technology, including I/O systems, device drivers, and power management. Acer Inc. et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Western District of Wisconsin); In the Matter of Certain Computer Systems, Printers and Scanners (U.S. International Trade Commission)
Represented Gateway in 19-patent suit involving computer hardware and software components. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Gateway, Inc. (Southern District of California)
Representing Select Retrieval, LLC, in patent infringement litigation related to patents covering targeted search technology that has been widely adopted by internet-based businesses. Select Retrieval, LLC v. ABT, et al. (Middle District of Florida, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Texas)
Representing ORG Structure Innovation, LLC, in patent infringement litigation related to software enabling core business security processes. ORG Structure Innovation, LLC v. Oracle Corp., et al. (Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of California, Western District of Texas)
Represented Innovative Solutions in trade secret and patent litigation relating to the company’s proprietary air data avionic computers. After a four-week jury trial, the jury returned a substantial verdict in favor of ISS, later increased by the court in awarding treble damages and fees. Innovative Solutions and Support v. Kollsman, Inc., et al. (Western District of Tennessee)
Defended Gateway in 15-patent suit involving MPEG video coding, caller-ID, low bit-rate speech coders, and other computer-related technologies. Lucent Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al. (Southern District of California)
Represented patent holder GTE Wireless in a patent suit involving cell phone signal acquisition technology. GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc. (Southern District of California)
Represented Gateway and Lenovo as defendants in a patent suit relating to wireless data communications. Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Lenovo in a case alleging infringement by the trusted platform module (TPM) used in computer security. The Quantum World Corp. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Edwards Lifesciences in patent litigation relating to medical devices for heart valve replacement and repair. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. St. Jude Medical (Central District of California) and Medtronic, Inc. (District of Delaware)
Represented Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a suit involving patents related to adhesive patches used in the delivery of medication. Lectec Corp. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas)
Represented Molecular Biosystems in multiple patent disputes between three competitors regarding contrast media for ultrasound techniques where infringement, validity and priority were at issue. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. v. Nycomed Imaging (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia); Sonus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Molecular Biosystems, Inc. (Western District of Washington)
Defended Medquist in patent case relating to medical transcription services and workflow management systems. Anthurium Solutions Inc. v. Medquist, Inc. et.al. (Eastern District of Texas)
EDUCATION
University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1995
University of North Carolina, M.A., 1992
University of New Mexico, B.A., 1987
HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS
Best Lawyers in America, 2013
The National Law Journal, “Defense Hot List,” 2007
Visiting Professor of Law, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea,
COURT ADMISSIONS
Texas
California
Georgia
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PUBLISHED WORKS AND PRESENTATIONS
eBay and Its Aftermath: Injunctions, Ongoing Royalties, and Compulsory Licensing,2 Sungkyunkwan Journal of Science & Technology Law 385 (Fall 2008)
Significant Patent Cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Korean Intellectual Property Journal (2005)
Intellectual Property Issues on the Internet, Annual Cyberlaw Institute, National Business Institute, Austin and San Antonio, Texas (June 2001)
Internet Jurisdiction, Annual Cyberlaw Institute, National Business Institute, Austin and San Antonio, Texas (June 2001)
The Ethical Care and Feeding of In-House Experts: The Protection and Discovery of the Opinions of Employees Consulted in Anticipation of Litigation, SMU Air Law Symposium, Dallas, Texas, February (1996)
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Member, State Bar of Texas
Member, State Bar of California
Member, State Bar of Georgia
http://farneydaniels.com/our-team/steven-r-daniels/
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/business/2013/09/25/joel_matlin_launches_11_million_lawsuit_against_alarmforce.html
http://www.brandonsun.com/business/breaking-news/alarmforce-names-new-president-ceo-anthony-pizzonia-will-start-sept-30--277661341.html?thx=y
Alarmforce CEO was removed from his job in July 2013, the man that replaced him was the CFO. This is all finally coming to a head with the Board of Directors appointment.
How does this pertain to REVO....WHO KNOWS... Could be nothing... But clearly the Board removed the old CEO FOR A REASON. It could be purely a coincidence in timing falling line with the lawsuit.
Everyone needs to watch L2... The is the most blatant manipulation of a stock that I have ever seen. This can be knocked down 30% with under $100 of trading but you clearly need a 20 Million share day to break .006. But thats the thing, gor every big block that gets traded up a bigger block holds it down... Then to stick it to us the MM will drop the PPS 15-20% in an effort to cause a selloff.. the thing is they dont get what the ask for it and keep at it.
Then on to REVO and its Executives... Clearly we are slowly moving forward... But who knows what will happen until one of these companies decides to settle or we see progress in the proceedings.
That would be amazing!
If Amaryllo is connected...then Yes. I personally believe we are tied to Amaryllo much more than people think.
..iSensor....http://trademarks.justia.com/788/98/isensor-78898813.html
...Dell Secureworks Inc.. Where is Dell?
http://www.secureworks.com/
Where was that Farney and Daniels LAW Firm out of? http://farneydaniels.com/our-team
Who is Dells strongest partner?
http://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/555/campaigns/dell-and-microsoft-ga-partners
Amaryllo International Inc. trademarked in Irvine, CA by Anthony Shenzgzhi King
Irvine, CA Attorney. 9 years experience
http://trademarks.justia.com/863/96/amaryllo-86396711.html
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mtc/locations/irvine.aspx
Irvine, CA ....everything seems to come out of there... Yang Family Trust (Paramount, CA....30 minute drive), Solomon Ali, Microsoft Technology Center......now Amaryllo.
..iSensor HD is available next week...
Do a little more research on Amaryllo....
You clearly don't see what we see....
Agreed. It will go when it goes.
But here is nothing wrong with informing true investors of the DD that I and few others have done. Thats not pumping thats being a steward to help others. Thats why I created the Facebook group, not to pump but to let them see the DD that has been done. Longs in the Facebook group hold more than 33% of the outstanding shares.
To many people get lambasted by the bash on this forum and never get the opportunity to see what REVO is truly about.
REVO is being manipulated by shorts plain and simple, there is nothing more to say other than when we get the BIG NEWS, SHE IS GOING TO RUN HARD.
Im no idiot, REVO has tremendous value, but you can't just look at the garbage that some post. This is connected like a spider web, we are merley connecting a few dots.
Total Manipulation.....18m shares to trade up.....10k to trade down.. Know what you hold. :)
People selling here are nuts, the company just announced lawsuits against four companies via an 8k to the SEC. That is huge news. Foward movement of REVO is indiciative of no shares being avaialable for trading. When even bigger news comes people will have no choice but to drive this up on the Ask.
REVO