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.
What are you talking about? Bungie never received any patent rights from Worlds. They are a game developer that has a development and marketing contract with Activision. Their game Destiny uses the methods defined in Worlds patents therefore infringing. Activision separately in their games Worlds of Warcraft and Call of Duty do the same and thus were named in the original infringement litigation.
This is not a real market, rather a bunch if penny traders looking for a quick flip. The real longs aren't interested in the daily gyrations driven by clueless speculating day traders.
Status conference scheduled on Judge Casper's calendar for Dec. 15.
I suspect that would be a catalyst.
Bottom line: 6 foundational claims affecting all MMORG's have been ruled valid. 1 additional claim ruled valid as well with possibility the Judge Casper will accept PTAB construction over her previous indefinite construction.
No matter how anyone try's to cast these rulings, this is a strong and positive outcome for WDDD from the PTAB.
Irregardless of Bungies' possible appeal of the valid claims, I personally believe Judge Casper will want to unstay the case and proceed based on her short status review time frames for this IPR and the fact that this case is the longest unresolved on her calendar with Bungie as unnamed in the litigation.
Operative word "could", not likely more than 1 year at most based on PTAB ruling and Activision agreement to outcome of IPR in Federal Court stay.
Reduction in WDDD holding in WORX was a result of acquisition of 51% of MarIMed not selling to fund IPR by Kidrin.
If they use massive multi- users then likely the patents would apply.
Think Facebook!
Claim 11 was dependent on claim 2 of '998 which was ruled indefinite by Judge Casper in the Markman order.
Likely not included in the PR unless that claim construction can be amended by Judge Casper based on the PTAB not having an indefinite issue with claim 2.
Claims 4, 8, 13, and 16 survive in the ‘690 patent, for similar reasons as claims 5 and 7 in the ‘558.
Your assumption does not factor that WDDD may acquire additional IP nor the other potential litigation against the other multiple infringers.
Generally the PTAB will not institute another IPR on claims that have been validated.
The threshold for allowing new challenges gets harder once IPR rulings have been issued on already challenged patents.
Therefore litigating on PTAB validated claims is extraordinarily difficult and all the best prior art available has been already thrown at these patents.
All the other online game companies are subject to litigation for up to 6 years of damaged looking back on the 3 claims that have been validated by the PTAB so far.
Damages for Activision are from Sept. 2013 until Nov. 2016. The courts limitation on damages is appealable.
Other cases would be 6 years back from date of suit minus time from expiration date in Nov 2016.
Let's see where the last to IPR rulings
Come out, that will provide a clearer picture of options to pursue.
That said, the 2 claims that have been ruled as valid are seminal to the functioning of MMORG's and that will form the basis of the damages analysis done by Susman's experts.
There are quite a few moving parts here that need to be addressed i.e. Appeals to the Federal Circuit must be filed within 60 days and whether the case before Judge Casper is stayed pending any appeal or proceeds in parallel.
Also whether a hearing is requested before Judge Casper to unseal documents withheld by Activision that may have affected the PTAB in it's ruling on Funhouser as prior art which was successfully used by Bungie to invalidate a large number of claims as well as thwart the RPI issue at the PTAB.
These and other issues have to be analyzed by Susman and Helge to move forward.
Only claim 1 was ruled invalid in the 1st IPR ruling, not all claims of that patent.
IPR ruling on '558 patent just released
Claims 5 & 7 survive.
WORX has 2 licenses in MA, as well as 2 in Delaware, 2 in Ill and 1 in Maryland.
Actually it is making $ millions and has over $6 mil. In assets.
One of the true MJ stocks that is real and growing. In this current market it is quite undervalued if you look at comps for other MJ stocks.
After the election results last week on legalization this sector has begun to take off.
Before everyone runs for the exit, I'd suggest we all wait for the other 5 IPR rulings. This claim was one of the broadest which are historically the easiest to challenge.
I did find it positive that they agreed that Durward does not disclose 3-D entities. That should be helpful on the claims that expressly recite “three-dimensional avatars” including the ‘501 patent claims and the ‘998 patent claims.
I’d recommend we watch for the other decisions as they come out.
Check our WORX, real players in this space with 8 licenses
One of Trump's most trusted advisers is Steve Banon who was a successful tech banker who supports patent holder rights and is not a big Google fan as they were big Obama supporters.
For what it's worth, from very knowledgable sources, he is familiar with Worlds and has met with Kidrin in the past. One of Banon's former partners at Banon & Co. brought one of Kidrin's companies public and they remain close friends.
Patent infringement litigation can be filed after a patent expires with damages assessed for 6 years prior to the expiration date.
The ill informed history concerning Worlds on this board has consistently framed this case as a series of binary events.
Initially it was the MSJ filing, then the counter suit in CA, next the Markman and now the IPR.
Patent litigation is a process not designed for impatient flippers.
By statute the PTAB must issue a ruling by Nov. 30th.
If WDDD passes PTAB, trial will be held within 6 months or less. Review the pretrial timeline set by Judge Casper prior to the stay. Given a positive PTAB ruling with ATVI bound by that decision I would expect an expedited trial and settlement as has been their pattern in prior cases prosecuted by Sussman.
What you have overlooked and failed to incorporate into your SP rise and slide within weeks analysis, was the critical Bungie filing of the IPR as a proxy of ATVI.
What obfuscation are you referring to? By in large this board has offered a realistic unbiased analysis of the risks and potential upside of Worlds patents. I suggest you take the time to read the substantive comments, pro and con and come to your own conclusions.
My take of the boards query of Bungie requesting their desired claim construction was, " make it clear to us what you would like from us and support that with the prior art and how that prior art distinguishes itself from Worlds claims and patent specifications. If you can't do that then you have a problem"
You can see that Judge Begley stated specifically regards her inquiry on the Phillips vs. BRI standard in light of the patent expiration date, "this is critical to your case"
similarly Judge Easthom suggested that the interpretation of the priority of values assigned to an object vs. an avatar shown in the Durward and Funkhouser prior art said specifically "well we can't use our commonsense for that" referring to the recent Federal Appeal courts ruling that overturned a PTAB finding based in solely using commonsense without supporting facts.
There is no problem here, it's the law.
Do believe all patents should not be protected as private property rights or just those you disagree with?
You've made quite a few philosophic and generalized comments on Worlds patents, where is the depth of analysis to support those comments?
Have you ever read these patents or any of the legal documents in this case?
If you believe in honesty, justice and humanity why support a system and company that sells the most violent entertainment software and infringes patents by companies that helped make their success possible.
If you are in fact a mathematician you would apply logical analysis and deduction to the patent claims objectively.
In America we value and protect private property rights through a legal framework of laws and courts.
Finally, by definition, there is a difference between avatars and objects. Avatars move with articulated movement thru the 3D specs while objects are stationary. Each have different values of priority with the avatar usually the top of the food chain.
There is nothing in the prior art that speaks to these different values nor the notion of filtering specific avatars while keeping others within the 3D scene.
In addition this is not a proximity filtering technique solely. you really should read the patents, prior art and PTAB transcript to grasp this concept.
You don't seem to understand the difference between the amount of data required in handling a 3d avatar vs. a 2d avatar, the data difference is magnitudes greater. These avatars are much more than sprites, the had thousands of polygons textures mapped on wireframe models with large amounts of animation data for articulation.
In addition the patents are not about reducing clutter rather selectively filtering avatars out of the field of view of specific users based on various criteria to reduce processing load and enhance user enjoyments at high frame rates based on different processors and internet speeds.
This was not a commonly understood and a novel inventive concept for VR back in 1995.
After reading the transcript and having attended the hearing, it is clear that the PTAB was having issues with Bungie's inability to define avatars as 3D or 2d representation of the user and how that squared with Judge Casper's Markman interpretation as well as how that tied into the prior art cited of Durward to make Worlds claims invalid.
Additionally the definition of "determining" and where that process occurs in the rendering pipeline process.
It appears they will apply the Phillips standard in claim construction due to the expiration dates and that would hone closer to the Markman claim constructions.
Finally it seems they are questioning how the Funkhouser 93 prior art teaching of level of detail algorithms
Can be tied to the maximum number claims and how the value of objects can be implied to cover avatars. in particular the selective filtering of those avatars within the users field of view based on a lack of value definition in Funkhouser 93. Questioning the combination of Funkhouser 93 & 95 to come up with an obvious invalidation deter
PTAB transcript available, good reading
https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login
The right side allows you to enter IPR2015-01264, click “I am not a robot” then “search”.
Under documents, the transcript is the most recent file uploaded.
Patents historically have been created to provide incentive to innovators, they move our society and the world forward and in the process create jobs and economic growth.
Invention is the backbone and engine of America's economic strength, almost everything in human progress started with an innovative idea that distinguished it from what existed in the world before it was conceived and implemented.
Should Edison have given away his invention of the light bulb for free since he solved a problem. Now it seems obvious, after the fact, that electricity could be passed into a vacuum glass bulb with a filament of tungsten.
Worlds patents are much more than an algorithm, Rather they detail a novel concept at the time, an architecture and method to load balance and filter massive numbers of concurrent users online in a 3D virtual reality shared space. Look to the prior art in 1995, there is none covering these methods.
Since Worlds received 10 patents on this fundamental core technology over 20 years it speaks to either innovation or gross incompetence at the USPTO.
There is the duplicitousness of the large tech companies that vigilantly enforce their own patents while simultaneously attempting to steal or crush small innovators of their patents without compensation for their own profit.
P.S. I find it ironic and abhorrent the Worlds who created this technology working with Steven Spielberg and The Starbright Foundation to provide sick children with a safe and and entertaining platform to communicate and play with each other from hospitals around the world has been misappropriated without compensation by the worlds largest provider of the most violent and gruesome content in the history of entertainment i.e ATVI's Call if Duty and Worlds of Warcraft.
Thats not gonna happen.
Morris Smith former head of Fidelity Magellan Fund is one of the investors, read the S1.
He is not in this stock for a few pennies of profit.
His group are in for long term return based on analysis of the potential upside.
To believe they would sell shares to cover their costs and pay short term capital gains exemplifies the small minded motivations often reflected on this board.
The packets are just installments to the game, they have nothing to do with the underlying technology to handle massive numbers of users as covered by Worlds patents.
If anything these packet installment sales increase the potential damages.
If you really understand the law, appealing the courts ruling on the coc
Limitation on damages you would recognize that an appeal filing can run concurrent to a trial if Worlds gets through the PTAB. All an appeal does if successful is increase the damages amount it does not hold up a trial.