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 assume you've read the experts opinion regarding damages. They stated the amount of lost revenue was somewhere between $186 to $372 million in lost royalties only.
In any scenario we are talking about $100's of millions.
In my opinion Calypso will be trying to recover what the expert has determined was lost due to infringement, several $100 millions. In addition, licensing revenue going forward. If and when Tmob is determined to be infringing they do not have a ticket to continue using the technology unless they pay past and future payments or they quit using the technology. In this case they only owe for past infringement.
This is what Tmobs patent says.
"These IP-based networks, which may operate over unlicensed spectrums, may include short-range communications networks, relying on short range wireless communications protocols such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and so on. The ranges of these networks may vary from network to network, but are often less than 500 meters (e.g., less than 200 meters). "
They want Calypso's patent to be a specific distance measurement despite the fact the judge did not see it that way in the preliminary Markman. This summary judgment on non-infringement and invalidity is textbook stuff. They know they are toast if this gets before a jury. Imo
So this is what a billion dollar defense looks like. Hmmm.
I believe the DNA results are in. A ruling should come soon. I don't see the judge allowing these motions to go forward. DENIED.
Interesting in a patent assigned to Tmob in May 2012 they reference the 923 as prior art and include the following info :
"These IP-based networks, which may operate over unlicensed spectrums, may include short-range communications networks, relying on short range wireless communications protocols such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and so on. The ranges of these networks may vary from network to network, but are often less than 500 meters (e.g., less than 200 meters). "
So why did they get a patent that deals with wifi/cell systems after the 923 was issued ? Isn't this the language Tmob was trying to eliminate in the Markman? They don't want any information related to a range. Aren't they trying to limit the 923 to a specific distance when it says otherwise? JMHO & questions.
Kind of an interesting situation we're in. The daic parties are marching on for a jury trial and that's what I'm looking for also. We're on the same page, hmmm. I don't think the daic parties fold before the big payout. They haven't in the past and I don't think it will happen now. There is only one choice at this stage and that is trial. Calypso's attorneys need to make sure they respond to all of these Tmob filings regardless what they say.
I will say Tmobs explanation of how the patent works was way off the mark. I wouldn't expect anything less though. Tmob knows if this case goes to a jury Tmob loses big time. Imo
New filing from Tmob requesting leave to move for Summary Judgment on non-infringement and invalidity. Here we go again. Tmob attaches a letter saying their handsets switch based on signal strength not distance. (I won't even try to explain this to them). Then they misinterpret the patent again. When are they going to get it right? When the judge puts the hammer down, that's when. Tmob is also seeking permission to file on invalidity if the non-infringement option doesn't work. O.K. It's time for the judge to tell Tmob they need to forget the flimsy attempt at getting the case dismissed. There is enough of a disagreement to not dismiss the case at this stage. Let the jury decide. I think they can figure it out.
Yep and Dec should be a pretty active month for filings. There isn't much wiggle room to extend filings and once Feb hits, most of the court dates are locked in stone, which can only be moved with good reason.
I agree. This appears to be a standard tactic, say it enough and if nobody challenges it it becomes law. Calypso's attorneys seem to be paying attention on this front so far. I think the judge will weigh in soon in a way that Tmob can't ignore. That will be in the manner of a ruling on the motions to invalidate and non-infringement, along with the final Markman.
3 months 4 days till trial.
Minor filing today by Calypso, Notice of Compliance, Plaintiff served Supplemental Expert Witness Disclosures on Defendants counsel.
Most likely as we discussed earlier there has been a behind the scenes discussion concerning the definitions. Both parties have now filed motions concerning the invalidity and non-infringement postured by Tmob. I believe this allows the judge to put forth the final Markman and address the Motions, thus wrapping up two issues . At this stage of the game Tmob is essentially trying to get the case dismissed based on what they perceive as being non-infringement. They are doing that by putting forth the argument that the Tmob system of autoswitching does not include what Calypso is claiming the patent covers. I don't believe the judge will come down on Tmobs side at this point.
I never accused you of doing anything neferious with the information gleaned from this message board. I will say that at this stage of the game, you are either a stockholder or you aren't. The only way to become part of this private club is through a private transaction. So it is a little late to be doing DD. I personally think Tmob does not have a plan for defeating Calypso and anything I post will be of a nature that it won't give them ideas, if they haven't already figured out a game plan, which appears they haven't. I would suggest most of your questions can be answered by reading the patent itself. The final question "how good is the 923" is a question only the jury can determine.
This is not a question I would answer, other than, It's magic.
I agree a validation of the patent would be great. A trial is needed for that to happen and I've always been in favor of this happening. I view it as the best way to maximize shareholder value.
I think we did explore the distance idea pretty thoroughly. Tmob has not given up on the idea of narrowing the patent coverage, hopefully our legal team is onto that game and I think they are. I see Tmob trying to settle this before it goes to a jury. I don't think our interest would be best served by bailing out before trial.
Yes. Sometimes the lawyers request more information than they need. In Calypso's case we need enough to show Calypso communicated with Tmob on the patent, Tmob implemented a program that included what the patent proposed and Tmob made x dollars by implementing this program. So rather than have an experts opinion based on data formulated by the expert, Calypso's expert can formulate a value of damages based on Tmob's numbers. From what I have been able to determine from the documents requested and possibly provided, Calypso may have enough information to put together the correct scenario of damages done. I don't think the judge agreeing with Tmob on some of the requests poses any problems for Calypso. An appropriate and realistic valuation can be made. If it presents any problem, it will be negative for Tmob because Calypso can say, if you (Tmob) had provided us the information we had requested we could make a more realistic analysis. This is our analysis based on the numbers you provided and how we had to make the determination we made.
3 months 5 days till trial. This is going to go really fast with the holidays here.
Next docket requirement 27 Nov. serve supplemental disclosures for expert witnesses by the party with the burden of proof.
I agree that our viewing of the ongoing documents will probably be limited. I don't think that applies to the Markman or other rulings by the judge though. At least with sealed documents we can still see the case progressing. The only thing that really matters is how the jury views the information provided at trial. I don't think the judge will rule for a summary judgement against Calypso on the non-infringement or invalidity motions posed by Tmob. There are too many factors involved that a jury must hear. I don't think Tmob has presented a clear cut case of non-infringement or invalidity. They are trying what they can to get the case dismissed without having to go to trial. I just don't see the judge stepping in before a jury hears the case. This case can go to a jury right now without the additional documents requested of Tmob. There is enough information to show Tmob did in fact talk with Calypso about the patent. Sometimes these attorneys ask for more than they need anyway. One thing we can keep abreast of is the trial date. That most likely won't be sealed and that is really what matters.
The judge hasn't refused to issue the final. He just hasn't issued it yet. There is no specific timeline for him, except that it would be beneficial before the trial.
But you'll get 100% more next year which will make up for the difference in taxes. I understand you wanting to at least get something right now. It has been a long time and if unelected management had been gone two years ago we would be through with this saga.
The only settlement they would be willing to give you right now would be some dog biscuits. I'll hold out for $$$$$. Tmob is on the run and they have nowhere to hide. If you read the most recent filings you would understand how deep in the river they really are. I see them desparately trying to settle, but Calypso has passed that train station. We are on the track to that big pile of money. The daic parties know where that pile of money is hiding and I don't think they are stopping until they get it. Hang on to your hats, this train is picking up speed and there are no more passengers allowed aboard. You're either in or you're out. This is now a private train and we don't have an unelected management to screw it up. Thank you Mr. Receiver.
I'm for most anything that brings me MO money. I've been holding this thing since 2004.Get em Daic parties. We need a very large settlement.
11-20-2012 the court corrected the docket entry to reflect the jury selection date as still on 4 March. It was obviously a typo yesterday. Power on daic parties.
Try this site.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/the-court/statistics/Median_Disp_Time_table_02-11.pdf
Looks to be less than 1 year.
You might find this helpful. Doesn't appear the company needs to stay open for two years.
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/closing-a-business/necessary-steps-to-dissolve-your-company.html
HOLY MOLY. LOL..that can't be real.
The daic parties didn't fight this long to settle before they can get a huge payout. I wouldn't count on Calypso settling until or unless there is some agreement to allow the daic parties to profit going forward. I don't think they settle for a one time payment.
This case is moving right along. The judge doesn't seem to be giving much leeway in moving the important deadlines. Let's hope that continues. I know looking at it every day can make it seem like a long time, but we are going to be at 4 March before you know it. I suspect Tmob is getting more concerned as the trial date approaches. I believe this judge is determined to get this case done within the specified time frame. While it would be nice to see the final Markman prior to Thanksgiving, it isn't essential until the trial starts. After reviewing some additional documents today I'd say I'm very encouraged by Calypso's legal team. I seriously doubt the judge approves Tmob's motion to dismiss on invalidity or non-infringement issues. Let's get out the textbook and see what the next motion is going to be.
Now that both parties have filed motions, maybe the judge can get about the business of filing the Final Markman.
I finally agree with you on something and that is the fact that we do need to be careful about what is posted.
DOCKET CONTROL ORDER: Pretrial Order due by 2/14/2013. Pretrial Conference set for 2/20/2013 01:00 PM in Mag Ctrm (Marshall) before Magistrate Judge Roy S Payne. Jury Selection set for 3/14/2013 09:00 AM in Ctrm 106 (Marshall) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S Payne on 11/19/12. (jml) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
The actual docket Control document still says March 4, 2013 for the jury selection date, so I have to assume someone just entered the docket entry with the wrong date.
Apparently the judge is holding pretty tight on the * items. The attorneys are going to be very busy beginning the end of this month with deadlines.
An order was signed 11-19-2012 ordering Tmob to produce documents without delay.
Most likely.
The purpose is to turn us into mushrooms. Don't expect to see much of anything except sealed filings. What I want to see is a trial, the rest is just icing.
3 months 1 week till trial.
Thanks for adding the documents. It's helpful to have them in one place.