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 there will a (gambling) opportunity between 1-2 cents here - the only value is the patent and right now $1-2M is plenty value IMHO
I believe it is the first patent that is under review and all subsequent patent refer back to it. I can dig some more to find out, pretty easy using the USPTO database
another important question is whether the other patents in suit claim dependency to the one(s) up for review. I posted the stats earlier and the odds are in favor of WDDD but that said the trend is against us.
REH
Motions to Stay District Court Cases Pending Post-Grant Proceedings
Stays pending reexamination of a patent have always been an important consideration in the patent litigation process. In recent years, the America Invents Act created new proceedings, including inter partes review (IPR), covered business method review (CBM) and post-grant review (PGR) for challenging patents within the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Decided by the newly-constituted Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the speed of these new proceedings, the initial success rates of challenges, and new estoppel rules all changed the calculus that district courts apply in deciding whether to stay litigation pending completion of a PTO proceeding. As a result, requests for litigation stays have become more common, and the number of stays granted by district courts has increased.
Judges exercise broad discretion, not only in deciding whether to grant or deny a stay, but also in determining the nature of a stay, such as whether the stay will apply to the entire case or whether the stay will remain in place indefinitely or for a fixed time. Since a litigation stay can have a significant impact on the outcome of the litigation, making more informed, data-driven decisions has become more important than ever. Docket Navigator recently completed a study of district court decisions on contested motions to stay pending reexamination, IPR and CBM proceedings in the PTO from January 1, 2008 to July 31, 2015. The results of that study are reflected in this report.
NUMBER OF DECISIONS ON MOTIONS TO STAY PENDING REEXAM, IPR and CBM
The overall number of decisions on motions to stay has been steadily climbing since 2011, with the most dramatic increase in between 2013 (with 351 decisions) and 2014 (with 443 decisions). That trend is expected to continue this year, but to a slightly lesser degree.
Stays Pending Reexam, IPR, & CBM (grey segments represent projected data through 12/31/2015, extrapolated from actual data from 1/1/2015 through 7/31/2015)
STAYS BY DISTRICT
The Northern District of California (CAND), the Eastern District of Texas (TXED), and the District of Delaware (DED) all decided a similar number of motions to stay. CAND decided the most overall, and had the highest grant rate, 57%. TXED is the opposite, with only 25% granted and over 67% denied. Delaware granted 55%, denied 38%, and partially granted 7%.
Stays Pending PTAB Proceeding by Court (September 2012-July 2015)
LENGTH AND SCOPE
While the length and scope of stays vary, most stays apply to the entire case and remain in place until the PTAB proceedings have concluded. 92% of stays apply to the entire proceeding, while only 8% apply to specific patent claims or products. 93% of stays apply until the PTAB proceeding is completed while only 7% end at a specific date or event.
Scope and length of stays pending PTAB proceeding (June 2014 - June 2015)
STAGE OF PTAB PROCEEDING
What impact does the stage of the PTAB proceeding have on whether a stay is granted or denied? Most stays were requested when the IPR was at one of two stages: (i) after a petition was filed with the PTAB, but before the PTAB rendered an institution decision (post-filing, pre-institution), and (ii) after the PTAB rendered an institution decision but before the PTAB issued a final written decision (post-institution, pre-FWD). In the first category, the stay decision was almost evenly split: 43% granted, 48% denied, 9% partially granted and denied. Many motions denied at this stage were denied without prejudice to refiling after the institution decision. In the second category, the success rates of motions to stay increased to 64%, with 25% denied, and 11% partially granted and denied. In many post-institution instances where the motion to stay was denied, the court’s reasoning was that the district court case was too far advanced to warrant a stay.
Impact of stage of PTAB proceeding on success of motion (June 2014 - June 2015)
SUCCESS RATE BY JUDGE
Although each case is unique, the data reflects variances in outcomes of motions to stay based on the judge deciding the motion. For example, Judge Sleet has a very high grant rate, but Judge Mitchell and Judge Gilstrap have very high denial rates. Please note: a very limited set of judicial decisions are available due to the relatively narrow time period involved. As with all statistical properties, use caution when extrapolating from such small data sets.
Success rate of motions to stay by judge (September 2012-July 2015)
CONCLUSION
The number of motions for stays is on a steady upward trend. A motion filed after the PTAB has instituted IPR is more likely to succeed than one where the petition has only been filed. But a post-filing motion to stay still has a good chance of being granted. As always, different judges have different inclinations when it comes to granting or denying these motions. The likelihood of getting an entire case stayed is very high, as is the likelihood of having a case stayed until the IPR has concluded.
Though there are obvious fluctuations between individual courts and judges, the overall trend shows that these motions are and will continue to be an important part of the litigation process.
from: http://docketreport.blogspot.com/2015/08/motions-to-stay-district-court-cases.html
Once granted, the PTAB has 12 months to conclude the proceeding with a written decision. The Director can extend the 12 month deadline by 6 months by a show of cause. Thereafter, the written decision can be appealed to the CAFC.
Even with an appeal to the CAFC, the complete duration should not exceed 3 years
Petition to Request Inter Partes Review
• Can be filed (1) 9 months after issue/reissue date or (2) after completion of post-grant review for any patent issued
before, on, or after Sept. 16, 2012. AIA § 6, but not more than a year after being served with a compliant. Id.
• Has to establish “a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
challenged in the request.” Id.
• Complete petition must include filing fee and be served on patent owner. 77 Fed. Reg. 48728 (Aug. 14, 2012) (codified as
37 C.F.R. § 42.106).
Petition to Request Inter Partes Review
Optional response has to be filed no more than 3 months after filing date of petition. 77 Fed. Reg. 48728 (codified at 37
C.F.R. § 42.107).
Preliminary Response to Petition by Patent Owner
• Only if reasonable likelihood standard is met. 77 Fed. Reg. 48728 (codified as 37 C.F.R. § 42.108).
• Inter Partes Review can proceed on all or some of the challenged claims. Id.
• Initiated within 3 months of the preliminary response or the last day during which such a response could have been
filed. AIA § 6 (codifying 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)).
Institution to Inter Partes Review (no more than 6 months after petition)
• Patent owner may file response to the petition addressing any grounds not already denied. 77 Fed. Reg. 48728 (codified
at 37 C.F.R. § 42.120).
• Due date for response is either as specified in board order or three months after institution of post-grant review. Id.
Patent Owner Response
Final determination no more than 1 year after initiation of post-grant review
(Extendable by no more than 6 months for a good cause or more if joinder). 77 Fed. Reg. 48727 (codified at 37 C.F.R. §
42.100).
I differ and still think ACTV will ask for a stay and chances are they will get it. Here's a recent ruling as a reference:
http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=f44203b6-aacf-4493-aa86-34c149520843
Note:
This case illustrates the far-reaching impact that the IPR challenges to patent validity can have on the pendency and resolution of patent litigations, holding that a stay of the entire litigation was appropriate even when only a portion of the asserted patents were challenged in the co-pending IPR proceedings.
I am not trying to scare anyone but still would not be surpriced if ACTV asks for a stay pending the review. Time will tell - seen it before as mentioned.
I lived through this story: http://rambus.org/story/
From my experience the large infringers will try absolutely everything to delay and confuse. To them it is cheaper to litigate than settle, at least for a long time.
Don't get me wrong, I think Worlds has a very strong case but so did both Rambus And Vringo and the end results were 180 degrees away from what I expected. In the Rambus case it took about 15 years!
All I am saying is to expect delay tactics as they (ACTV) believe they might be able to bleed Worlds to death.
REH
I'm afraid ACTV will file now for an extension pending the outcome of the patent review. I still believe WDDD has a very strong case but the timeline could slip and thus make it less attractive for short term investors.
Watching carefully here
REH
Probably north of 6 billion
Too bad they didn't say whizboard but http://www.glitek.com/pages/glidetek-xglide
Actually this domain points to whizboard.com. Domain was created August 15. Whizboard.com was created July 17, 2012 and points to bigcommerce.com.
new one wheel hover board - http://rideonewheel.com/
I know this rule and the key word is "may". However, I believe they would probably turn down the R/S unless VPOR has some very strong grounds why it would need to do this before the financials are in order. Either way I believe an R/S will indeed happen in the near future but probably after Fins.
On the sidelines at least until fins
What documents are required for a stock split?
The company needs to complete the Issuer Company-Related Action Notification Form and submit to FINRA no later than 10 calendar days prior to the record date of the corporate action. Submissions can be set via email or fax to (202) 689-3533. Failure by an OTC Equity issuer to provide the requisite notice may constitute fraud under Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b-17
Where do you see that requirement?
How do you ascertain that smartwheels is VPOR? http://sonicsmartwheels.com/
These guys have been in business since before Dror formed his latest company - https://www.facebook.com/SonicSmartWheels
I had a position and I am currently on the sidelines. If you want a discussion forum with all wearing rose colored glasses then I say you're not being objective. If you do not agree with my thoughts then by all means counter argue. Asking someone to leave for a difference in opinion goes against the concept of a discussion board.
Why do you think VPOR is a sound investment?
From their website:
"Dedicated to a new generation of innovative brands, Vapor Group, Inc. has placed its mark as not only a developer of quality electronic cigarettes, vaporizers, and Made in the USA naturally flavored e-liquids, but also as manufacturer and marketer."
When it comes to the 2-wheel balancing boards they are neither a developer nor a manufacturer but simply a marketer (retail).
I am curious to how to value this company in a positive light after:
1. They are on the 3rd CPA in one year
2. Annual 2014 and all 2015 Financials not filed.
3. AS is 8 billion shares (and I believe most have issued)
4. They jump from e-cigarettes to 2-wheel electric scooters - the only commonality is that both run on electricity but obviously to very different marketplaces with different customer/prospect bases
5. The CEO has a tainted history with public companies
6. VGR Media was supposed to be a great savior - mum's been the word here in 2015
7. No update on OTC markets since Nov 13, 2014 so it gives a very wrong picture - an issuer can update OTC in a few minutes so why not keep investors up to date?
Market Value1 $214,914 a/o Nov 19, 2015
Authorized Shares 2,000,000,000 a/o Jan 15, 2014
Outstanding Shares 429,827,024 a/o Nov 13, 2014
Business Description (from OTC Markets - written by the company)
Vapor Group, Inc. (formerly named AvWorks Aviation Corp.) designs, develops, manufactures and markets high quality, e-cigarette brands which use state-of-the-art electronic technology and specially formulated.
Why do you find this to be a sound and lucrative investment?
So we agree their MO used to be "US Made" - i do realize what they outsourced but they wanted to be portrayed as Manufacturer/Distributor and not a straight retailer. Trust me I know, I also have an extensive network overseas and get just about anything with whatever logo - actually so can anyone - just go to Alibaba.com.
My point is that the negative pile IMO is getting higher: No Financials, Jumping on a new Fad with China made boards at high prices, history of the CEO, 8 BILLION shares outstanding or very close, R/S looming and must happen. IMO the chances of this company going under in its current form is greater than the stock going up 10x.
Come on, how much is a store worth with nothing proprietary? By the way, anyone find that NY store? Is it open?
yes but VPOR's MO earlier has been as a manufacturer, now they are venturing into a very crowded new space with a product priced in the high end. Does not make any sense to me, focus is everything.
THERE ARE TONS OF COMPANIES SELLING THESE ITEMS, INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE US. ALSO NOTE THAT VPOR DOES NOT MANUFACTURE ANYTHING BUT SIMPLY BUY THESE FROM A CHINESE MANUFACTURER WHO WILL SELL TO ANYONE AND BRAND THEM THE WAY YOU WANT.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=electric+scooter+board&tbm=shop
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=2+wheel+scooter&tbm=shop
http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/two-wheel-scooter.html
why pay 2-3 times more when you get it straight from China, free shipping, no customs duty?
http://www.aliexpress.com/cheap/cheap-electric-balance-board.html
Whizboards also come from China.
Also plenty available here in the US at better prices and better ratings:
http://bestelectrichoverboard.com/
This makes no sense and the re-focus of the business is a warning sign to me along with the fact that VGR Media seems gone silent, no financials, huge OS, CEO background and the list goes on.
I for one think there's better investments out there.
Do your own DD
http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=balance+scooter
plenty available in china at a fraction of the price
a far cry from vaping products. what happened to VGR Media?
reverse coming, beware here
where do you see the established trial date? last time I looked the pre-trial is scheduled for the fall 2016
Cancer Genetics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CGIX), an emerging leader in DNA-based cancer diagnostics, offering bench to the bedside solutions, today confirmed the closing of its previously announced public offering of 3,000,000 shares of its common stock with five-year warrants to purchase 3,000,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $5.00 per share at a combined price to the public of $4.00. Cancer Genetics’ gross proceeds from this offering were $12.0 million before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, as well as other estimated offering expenses payable by Cancer Genetics. The underwriters were granted a 45-day option to purchase up to an aggregate of 450,000 additional shares of common stock and/or warrants. The underwriters’ option to purchase additional warrants was exercised and sold today.
I like to be positive BUT have seen this before - the case was Rambus (RMBS) against the major semiconductor companies. There was no way Rambus could lose, so we all thought. The whole story here: http://rambus.org/story/
The short version:
The stock went from a high of $150.00 to a few bucks
The patent case took so long that the patents expired - took about 15 years until the case was over!
so, even though I and a lot of others think that Worlds has the upper hand in this case it is not over by a long shot. It looks like ATVI will try to throw everything at the wall and if they go that route appeals take years and years.
I stepped to the sidelines a few months ago but am ready to go back in if I see something that tells me this is actually going to trial, there will definitely be a run if/when a trial starting date is only weeks away. That does not mean it can't sink again like a rock if a. WDDD loses or b. ATVI appeals. In that case, it's never wrong to take a profit.
Just my two cents after 20 years of following IP cases.
REH
Court date will not be set until after September pre trial conference
That sticky is still relevant
no idea what you keep talking about but don't see how it has anything to do with the discussion of this stock. you got the wrong board perhaps?
This is good news! I am still afraid we'll drift down for the next 10-12 months but then as we have a firm trial date and get to about a month before trial we should be moving north. This is when I plan to get back in unless there's dumping with conversions that drive the stock down to a good entry point (3-4 cents).
VRNG news is not going to help. The big guys seem to steamroll over the small entrepreneurial companies, what a shame.
I hear you. My point had more to do with the time factor. If the "drawing" is a year or more from now vs another "ticket" that has a "drawing" in say, a month I'd take the shorter time.
Everybody must make their own judgement. I have been involved in patent litigation cases for 20 years now, not always successful mind you.
Experience is the best teacher but the tuition can be high.
Best of luck to all.
Not a bad plan but a few "if's" more than I like. I am, however, keeping an eye!
stark: I believe WDDD has a good case! However, looking at various factors I, as an investor, believe my money can work better elsewhere for the next 12 months, maybe longer:
1. Trial date was not set at the last conference, instead we got new discovery and depositions happening.
2. The firm looks to need money as they need to pay the IPR attorneys and other expenses - on the low end they spend about $500K/year not counting accumulated salaries.
3. The company currently has a cap around $7M
4. Current Liabilities are north of $3M
5. Note holders are about to convert and it is not a given they will take a worse deal, at best a further diluting deal but these guys do not want to wait forever for ROI
6. MSJ is an obstacle in lieu of "Alice" - nobody can guess the outcome and ruling
7. IPR is another obstacle, this looks on the face of it harmless but again we do not know - if that goes forward Casper will surely approve a motion to delay this case
8. The timeline we received tells us that there will not be a trial for at least a year
soooo..... as an investor do you 1. buy/hold the stock here fully knowing there are no positive catalysts on the horizon short term (settlement does not seem reasonable pre-trial) OR 2. do you take your money and play a different table and keep an eye to see if risk/reward balance shifts?
I choose 2, not because I do not believe in their chances BUT because the table looks to be "dead" for 12 months and chances to MAKE money in that period looks very slim. Money needs to multiply, that's why people buy stock in the first place. If you can buy a lottery ticket for a drawing tomorrow, would you chose that instead of the ticket that gets drawn in a year?
just my 2c and don't forget my first line
does not sound like a trial until 2017-18:
"Initial Pretrial Conference set for 9/29/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 11 before Judge Denise J. Casper. The parties shall confer regarding the topics identified under Local Rule 16.5(d) and shall prepare and submit a joint pretrial memorandum in accordance with Local Rule 16.5(d) no later than five (5) business days prior to the pretrial conference. The pretrial memorandum shall also propose deadlines for the filing of motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, proposed jury voir dire and a proposed trial date."
Motions in limine could take the good judge a year to rule on
sorry, dead money for a while but hope they win in the end