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.
The Rainmaker Saturday, May 04, 2013 7:05:36 PM
Re: midastouch017 post# 712 Post # of 722
Big win at Markman opens up some nice possibilities
That's old info, here's the latest, Mass. now more speedy and the place to be for IP trials, you were the one that first told me that, LOL.
http://newenglandinhouse.com/2009/02/01/new-rule-boosts-patent-appeal-in-massachusetts/
That's funny because nowhere in that post you are referrencing does it say 90%, I guess no one is actually supposed to read it. Settlements occur pre-markman, post-markman, pre-trial, during trial, and post-trial. You told me Activision is known for settling, so I'm counting on that!
Try reading the article slower. They are not limiting claims to 10, they are asking that in the markman that the number of claims they are being asked to interpret be limited to 10, and it's only a suggestion. The whole point of the article is that they are trying to make patent litigation in Mass. faster, so that's good news for us!!! Good find! And it's not new, it's from 2009.
http://newenglandinhouse.com/2009/02/01/new-rule-boosts-patent-appeal-in-massachusetts/
“The temptation I quickly discovered is that when this claims construction duty was assigned to the court, you would find that lawyers would designate for construction every term of the patent,” Stearns said. “In a recent patent case I wrote, one of the terms that I was actually asked to construe was what a bed was.”
The new rule suggests that attorneys limit the number of claims they ask the court to interpret to 10, Stearns said. “The idea is to caution lawyers that we don’t want these rabbit-like multiplications of claim construction requests.”
Markman is 1 day usually. If there is a new rule as you say, it obviously doesn't apply to this case as there are 55 claims.
NPE or PE has nothing to do with willful infringment or not, the only thing it changes is the possibility or an injunction order, at least in the U.S.
Anybody know more about the international patent protection that EDVA is referring to here? That just makes this that much more valuable!
So you're saying it's worth a lot more than 45c per share no matter how you look at it!!!
WDDD up 5c on 500k shares!!! Looks like the same setup from when it went from 40c to 54c.
JJ what's your take on the news today? Sounds like we lost on one patent, pending appeal, and won on the other?
This is why Donald Stout would be a big boost for WDDD!!!
Profile
Mr. Stout is a member of the bars of the District of Columbia and Virginia, and he is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Fifth Circuit of Appeals, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). He earned his J.D. degree (with honors) from George Washington University in 1972. Mr. Stout was employed by the USPTO from 1968 to 1972 as an assistant examiner involved with patent applications covering radio and television technologies. He interpreted complex technical disclosures in patents and publications involving communications technology and theory, along with principles of electrical engineering, as part of his responsibilities with the USPTO. In 1972, Mr. Stout worked as a law clerk for two former board members of the USPTO Board of Appeals, where he assisted in deciding issues of patentability for applicants who appealed previous decisions. From 1972 to the present, Mr. Stout's legal practice has involved all facets of intellectual property, including litigation, the provision of expert witness opinions, and the licensing and representation of clients before the USPTO in diverse technological areas, including telecommunications. He has testified as an expert witness regarding obtaining and prosecuting patents. Mr. Stout has written and prosecuted hundreds of patent applications in diverse technologies and has also rendered opinions on patent infringement and/or validity. Mr. Stout has been a senior partner at the law firm of Antonelli, Terry, Stout and Kraus, LLP since 1982.
Also Stout's NTP won $612MM from RIMM, and Stout is over at Vringo too.
http://paidcontent.org/2011/08/02/419-ntp-wins-appeal-its-patents-may-live-on-to-haunt-mobile-industry/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/747061-vringo-s-stout-trumps-13-tech-giants-in-ntp-patent-suit
Stout would be a better guess and more in alignment with being impressed by the info.
Don't make anyone out to be any better than any other chartist, as there were two choices one could have said, breakout after 50c area, the highest high in the past 10 years, or that the stock would go back to support around 40c. I personally don't believe it would have gone back to 40c if EDVA hadn't thrown out a new play which hurt us in the short term.
I'd say those 35c shares are long gone. The stock has been above 35c for the past month and a half since the deal closed, mostly trading in the 40's and as high as 54c. These kind of financiers aren't looking for a long term investment, when they can get their 10-30% they are out, they are more of a bird in the hand is better than a possible two in the bush. I think what has stalled us is EDVA announcing another pick last week, which I'm sure caused some to sell and chase the new toy, unfortunately for those people that new toy has lots of dilution coming, and has already crashed. Then today we saw selling when Vringo news hit, as I'm sure some are trying to time the two stocks. We are still about 2 months out, should start to get fun here soon.IMO
Yes, some are trying to time both Vringo and WDDD, going back and forth.
Not all patent plays are created equal, though some will try to convince others they are. One has to look at the total picture, the company's share structure, market cap, what they stand to gain in the lawsuit, and about 10 other things. WDDD is in pretty good shape right now, we'll know more about total long term future outlook after the markman hearing. The good news is ATVI is known for settling and they have the cash to do it, though I would like it to happen after a positive markman hearing, so other infringers would be more likely to settle.
Every company having a markman isn't equal to the next, hopefully investors realize this. One has to look at the company first, look at the share structure, which obviously no one did here at BCYP, then assess what the lawsuit could be worth, then look at the current market cap and see if the risk/reward is worth it. A company with a market cap of $100MM that might win $100MM at trial isn't a good buy, doesn't matter if there is a markman hearing coming or not.
They are different animals, but lets not forget, Vringo didn't have any of those goodies you mentioned until around this time last year, prior to that they only had 1 lawsuit also, but were already at $3+. Vringo is mature compared to WDDD, but WDDD could be there a year or two from now with just as many toys. The main difference being price right now, WDDD from 40c to $3 is a 7 bagger, don't think anyone will be getting a 7 bagger out of Vringo, those days are long gone.IMO
It's like ground hog day here again, 10 days plus 5 days, when will this song ever stop!!! Hasn't it been 10 days plus 5 days for like 4 months now, lol. Come on judge jackson, do the right thing!
CB, you can go to "settings" on the top right hand corner of the page, then go to "my removed posts" in the middle of the page, and contest the removal, if a mod removed it it can be contested, if ihub admin removed it it can't.
IZEA getting sued! Guess some press is better than no press.
Blue Calypso, Inc. (OTCBB: BCYP), an innovator in digital social advertising, mobile content syndication, and analytics, announced that it has received a date of November 7, 2013 for the claim construction or Markman hearing in its patent infringement cases against five defendants, including Groupon (NSDQ: GRPN), IZEA, (OTCQB: IZEA), Foursquare, MyLikes and Yelp (NSDQ: YELP). All of these cases are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=57357212&symbol=BCYP
It's not just capital raises one has to watch out for at BCYP, it's all the current convertibles,options, and warrants. There are more in the filings, but just right here there are over 100MM shares!!! Add that to the current O/S of 138MM and you're probably looking at around 250MM-300MM shares total fully diluted. I checked this stock out about a month ago, just didn't like the financials at all, people will have to get out before all the shares hit the float, not something one wants to own overnight.IMO
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=9195092
Our stockholders may experience substantial dilution as a result of the conversion of outstanding convertible preferred stock, convertible debentures, convertible notes, or the exercise of options and warrants to purchase shares of our common stock.
As of March 28, 2013, we have granted options to purchase 13,979,073 shares of common stock and have reserved 16,941,008 shares of our common stock for future issuance pursuant to our 2011 Long-Term Incentive Plan. We have also granted restricted stock awards totaling 13,456,667 shares of our common stock. In addition, as of March 28, 2013, we have reserved for issuance 25,036,818 shares of our common stock for issuance upon conversion or outstanding convertible preferred stock and 32,495,755 shares of our common stock for issuance upon exercise of outstanding warrants. The respective exercise prices of certain of our outstanding warrants are also subject to anti-dilution adjustments. As of March 28, 2013, we have also reserved 3,433,333 shares of our common stock for issuance upon conversion of outstanding convertible debentures. The conversion price of our outstanding convertible debentures are also subject to anti-dilution adjustments. On December 12, 2012, we entered into a financial advisory agreement, pursuant to which we agreed to issue 4.9% of our issued and outstanding common stock on a fully-diluted basis to such financial advisor in the event that we complete capital raising transactions that generate at least $4 million in net proceeds and complete an uplisting of our common stock to a national securities exchange during the term of the agreement.
Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
$0.1135
33,234,896
On November 9, 2012, we entered into an exchange agreement with Aztec Systems, Inc., pursuant to which we agreed to exchange a promissory note with a balance of $368,059.23 and our existing accounts payable to Aztec of $177,898.92 for an 8% convertible note in the original principal amount of $545,958.16. The 8% convertible note is due on March 31, 2013. Pursuant to the exchange agreement, the Company agreed to register the shares of Common Stock issuable upon conversion of the 8% convertible note and an aggregate of 3,733,428 shares of our common stock then held by Aztec on or before December 31, 2012. The 8% convertible note is convertible into shares of our common stock at a conversion price equal to the greater of: (i) $0.15 per share or (ii) the price per share at which our common stock is sold in a subsequent financing. Upon effectiveness of the registration statement covering the resale of such shares, the 8% convertible note automatically converted into shares of our common stock. The foregoing securities were sold to a limited number of accredited investors, without registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), in reliance upon an exemption from registration provided by Section 4(2) under the Securities Act and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. The securities may not be transferred or sold absent registration under the Securities Act or the availability of an applicable exemption therefrom.
On August 28, 2012, we issued an aggregate of 44,007 shares of our common stock as consideration for consulting services rendered. On November 21, 2012, we issued an aggregate of 36,863 shares of our common stock as consideration for consulting services rendered. The shares were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the securities laws of any state, and were offered and sold in reliance on the exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provided by Section 4(2)of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The securities may not be transferred or sold absent registration under the Securities Act or the availability of an applicable exemption therefrom.
On June 14, 2012, we commenced a private offering of up to $10,000,000 of units, at a purchase price of $1.00 per unit. Each unit consisted of: (i) two shares of our common stock and (ii) a warrant to purchase one share of our common stock. The warrant is exercisable for a term of two years at an exercise price of $0.75 per share. The warrants contain provisions that protect their holders against dilution by adjustment of the purchase price in certain events such as stock dividends, stock splits, issuances of securities at a purchase price less than $0.75 per share (subject to certain exceptions) and other similar events. As of the termination date of the private offering, we had issued and sold an aggregate of 445,000 units in consideration of gross cash proceeds of $445,000. As a result, we issued an aggregate of 890,000 shares of common stock and warrants to purchase an aggregate of 445,000 shares of common stock. WFG Investments, Inc. acted as placement agent in connection with the private placement and received a cash fee of $44,500 and warrants to purchase 26,700 shares of Common Stock. The securities were not registered under the Securities Act or the securities laws of any state, and were offered and issued in reliance on the exemption from registration under the Securities Act, provided by Section 4(2) and Regulation D (Rule 506) under the Securities Act. The securities may not be transferred or sold absent registration under the Securities Act or the availability of an applicable exemption therefrom.
On June 1, 2012, we entered into an employment letter agreement with William Ogle, our chief executive officer. Pursuant to his employment letter agreement, Mr. Ogle is entitled to receive a restricted stock award equal to 7% of our total issued and outstanding shares as of June 11, 2012. This restricted stock award vests: (i) one-third on the one year anniversary of the grant date, and (ii) the remaining two-thirds will vest pro rata in eight equal quarterly installments. Mr. Ogle may also be offered additional annual equity awards of up to 200% of his base salary subject to mutually agreeable and reasonable targets beginning in 2013. In addition, pursuant to his employment letter agreement, we also granted to Mr. Ogle options to purchase 3% of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock on a fully-diluted basis. The options are exercisable at an exercise price equal to $0.10 per share for a term of 10 years. . The shares and options issued were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the securities laws of any state, and were offered and sold in reliance on the exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provided by Section 4(2)of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The securities may not be transferred or sold absent registration under the Securities Act or the availability of an applicable exemption therefrom.
On April 19, 2012, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with an existing stockholder, pursuant to which we issued an 8% senior secured convertible debenture in the principal amount of $35,000 and a warrant to purchase 6,500,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.10 per share for a term of five years. Pursuant to the securities purchase agreement, the investor covenanted to purchase up to an additional $465,000 of senior secured convertible debentures in a series of closings to occur at our discretion through October 19, 2012. As of December 31, 2012, we have issued and sold an aggregate of $465,000 of such debentures in consideration of gross proceeds of $465,000. The debentures are convertible into shares of our common stock at the option of the holder at a conversion price equal to the closing price of our common stock on the date of conversion. The 8% debentures contain provisions that protect their holders against dilution by adjustment of the purchase price in certain events such as stock dividends, stock splits, issuances of securities at a purchase price less than the closing price of our common stock on the date of conversion (subject to certain exceptions) and other similar events. The debentures and the warrant issued to the investor were not registered under the Securities Act or the securities laws of any state, and were offered and issued in reliance on the exemption from registration under the Securities Act, provided by Section 4(2) and Regulation D (Rule 506) under the Securities Act.
Aaron Sorkin's comments about the internet:
(If you don't know who he is, he's one of the most intelligent screenwriters in Hollywood)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0815070/?ref_=sr_1
Sorkin: "Nothing has done more to make us dumber or meaner than the anonymity of the Internet."
Sorkin: "I think that socializing on the Internet is to socializing what reality TV is to reality."
Sorkin: "From time to time I'll read some of the comments under stories on it to get a sense of what it must be like at a Klan meeting."
Sorkin: "It only takes five comments before you find somebody with a severe mental disorder."
So you're saying that a markman opinion follows around a set of patents once it has been declared, then why would those patents ever need more than one markman hearing? From what I can tell, every lawsuit gets a markman hearing? What if a company had a bad lawyer at the first markman hearing, that can never be overcome?
LOL, it doesn't matter how confident the lawyers are, anything can happen. Either way, it's better, for the company, to take down a giant and have other infringers settle and not have to pay all those extra legal fees. Just like in Vringo's case, they beat Google and now Microsoft is in settlement talks. Boom Boom!!!
A company can come back with more patents and/or extensions at a future date when there is only one lawsuit, or just better lawyers. But you are making my point, all the markmans at once is a mistake that can't be overcome once lost.
Because when they are back to back, if you lose at one Markman you lose at them all, plain and simple. Sometimes it's better to come back a year later with better ammo which back to back lawsuits doesn't allow. Plus back to back lawsuits rack up the legal fees, whereas you win against one big dog and other infringers may choose to settle without having to incur all the costly legal fees.
It's a moot point until the patents are proven at markman, if a company loses at markman the other companies just take the same defense.
If you're referring to Vringo, they went after Google and their customers, not Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo all at once.
The markman is where it's at on both plays, that's going to tell everyone how the future will go. If either company doesn't get past the first markman the rest aren't going to matter.
I think EDVA and his group will be in many patent plays.
That's not a seller, that's someone using their shares trying to shake weak hands out so they can buy more. If they really wanted to sell they would have left their order and let it get bought up.
Lookie lookie who the patent troll is now!
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/microsoft-batters-google-with-this-ruling.html/?ref=YF
LOL, I know, but why that date? Was just wondering why he is saying that date, sounds specific.
OK, I give, you keep saying May 7th, what happens on May 7th?
Anybody notice that the last time when EDVA announced he was coming out with the prior art article the selling dried up and the stock started moving up on next to no volume, and now after his remarks posted yesterday about coming out with a damages report it seems to be doing the same. Below from EDVA last night.
"WDDD is a blockbuster in the making and I am not saying that as a means of hype-I believe it. From everything I have read I don't see an "unsuccessful" Markman hearing. If you want to argue for a less clear cut result I think maybe you could say that. I'll have some thoughts on the claim construction soon and will share some updated damages numbers but given the current morass that VRNG finds itself in (which can change any day of course), WDDD is clearly the strongest of the emerging bunch of patent stocks."
LMAO!! Really, Mark Cuban, he's known for disliking patent companies! He even said he only bought Vringo to hedge against his tech stocks. Here's what Mark really thinks, straight from his blog:
If you want to see more jobs created – change patent laws
Aug 6th 2011 8:24PM
Sometimes it’s not the obvious things that create the biggest problems. In this case one of the hidden job killers in our economy today is the explosion of patent litigation.
Every technology company I have is getting hit by patent lawsuits that are the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. Every week it seems like a new one comes up. Between having to pay our lawyers a lot of money to review each, to increasing insurance rates and settlement costs because we can’t afford to pay to fight the nonsense, it’s an enormous expense. So much so that money that would have gone to new hires to improve and sell the product has to be saved to pay to deal with this bullshit.
I’m not talking about a new company that had an idea that someone beat us to. No sir. I’m talking about companies that have been doing business the same way for years that are getting hit by patent trolls . These aren’t operating companies that are trying to protect their business. These are companies that aggregate patents and raise capital for the sole purpose of suing companies and extorting money from them.
It’s bad for my little companies. It’s horrific for bigger companies. It’s so bad that major tech companies are buying big collections of patents not because theyher want to own the intellectual property but rather because they want the ability to respond to patent lawsuits with a lawsuit of their own. It’s like playing a game of thermo nuclear war. If all sides have “nuclear patents” they can respond to patent litigation with equal force . In other words, if you have enough “nuclear patents” no one will sue you for patent infringement because you have enough power to respond in kind. Its crazy and costing this country jobs.
Google just bid $900mm to buy a patent collection. Those patents ended up being sold for $4.5BILLION dollars . That is money that for could have gone to job creation.
We need to face the facts, patent law is killing job creation. If the current administration wants to improve job creation, change patent law and watch jobs among small technology companies develop instantly. I know I have at least 1 company that would hire instantly.
You can see it right here!
EDVA commented on his SA article tonight:
"WDDD is a blockbuster in the making and I am not saying that as a means of hype-I believe it. From everything I have read I don't see an "unsuccessful" Markman hearing. If you want to argue for a less clear cut result I think maybe you could say that. I'll have some thoughts on the claim construction soon and will share some updated damages numbers but given the current morass that VRNG finds itself in (which can change any day of course), WDDD is clearly the strongest of the emerging bunch of patent stocks."
LOL, first the latest O/S listed is 138MM,
The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock as of March 28, 2013, was 138,381,367.
But, as you made me aware, Activision almost always settles, so being out after a positive markman hearing is a bad move. 5 patents and 59 claims is going to be hard to beat any way you look at it.
I would agree if this wasn't at 35c already. Now maybe people don't read the financials and don't read the sales of the companies they are suing, and instead just jump into this one blind, that might happen, who knows, but with 200MM fully diluted, that gives this a market cap of $70MM right now. I really don't see these lawsuits getting them much more than $100MM total, so it's already at 70% of what they can win, that's already too high, not much more room to go. Plus there are other plays out there, maybe not all in pre-markman, but pre-markman isn't the only play, you have post-markman, pre-trial, post-trial, all those are possible buy in points based on current valuation. This market is just like bio plays, many hurdles to get through and POSSIBLE buying opportunities, based on price, at each stage. At this stage this one is a sell, after a markman win and a damages report this might be a buy again depending on where the price is.IMO