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 convinced me 100% was that the source code had been validated. It is my understanding that programmers as a rule include dates and programmers names which will substantiate timelines in favor of WDDD.
Then reading the articles about Ms. Lee testifying was illuminating. Judge Roberts several months ago sent a warning to the USPTO. It reads as if he is making good on his word.
Ms. Lee cannot manage her staff as it is so she wants to raise rates for services. I wander how many people on this board could get away with stealing 250,000 hours from their employer before they were jailed? Our tax dollars at work.
and that is why you do not bet more than you can afford to loose
I make it a practice not to disclose my models. I will tell you that this stock is worth a tremendous amount more than what it currently sells for.
No I do not have a gut feeling. I do have a belief that WDDD wins. The latest reason why were the words of Justice Roberts when he he put PTAB on notice. I agree this is a gamble but as a gamble there are probabilities. There is a larger probability of WDDD winning than loosing. It is ATVI that must prove they did not infringe. There is no way they are going to be able to do that with 51 claims. It is statistically impossible in my model.
My first thought is do you have any skin in the game and being sincere in your question or just enjoy verbal discourse?
The second thought is what does "gut" and the emotion of "feelings" have to do with the United States Code, Judge Casper, ATVI attorneys infamous recorded words on audio and video, The United States Supreme Court words, intentional and willful, a boutique law firm that spent nine months researching before they agreed to work for free and being paid only upon the win, and treble damages?
The last time I checked we are a country of law that protects property rights and adjudicates against those that have infringed on those property rights.
Excellent news.
Does anyone know if the on line packs that are referenced in the article has a negative bearing on the lawsuit?
http://finance.yahoo.com/m/2333ee7f-1f28-3a7c-aa0b-0919658aeffb/ss_activision-blizzard-(atvi).html
Also in the next press release, in the second line it reads "with other next-gen platforms to follow**". Does anyone know if these new platforms are a work around for ATVI or just marketing on there part?
http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=987947
abcd12, I would like for you to read the definition below and then explain with fact how WDDD behavior could be construed that there was a
1. Lack of diligence in making a legal claim.
2. When did the unreasonable delay occur?
3. How has ATVI been prejudiced?.
4. What circumstances have changed?
5. Witnesses and creators are alive. There are registered patents and
computer code.Specifically state what has been lost, misplaced, or no
longer available?
6. Is your position that WDDD has a patent (exclusive right of
intellectual property) and by going to court and following the legal
process therefore there is no just resolution?
7. Explain when equity was ever left sleeping?
My interpretation of your word smithing is as follows. We do not know each other but since you have never said that your car and house are not mine then I should be able to throw you out of it and take the residence and car for myself. It does not matter that you hold a deed of trust. It does not matter that you have a clear car title because after all you never told me so therefore I can conclude you left equity sleeping and there should be no just resolution for you. Now of course I do not believe this scenario. My point is when you are given a patent the owner of that patent has been told by the United States government that you have exclusivity. No person or entity has the right to take your property and use it without compensation. This doctrine has got to be one of the weakest thought processes I have ever read involving billions of dollars.
I would be interested in you answering all the questions above and making everyone on this board smart. The one rule is you have to use fact.
Laches (/'læt??z/, la-ch?z, like "latches"; /'le?t??z/, lay-ch?z; Law French: "remissness", "dilatoriness", from Old French laschesse) refers to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, in particular with regard to equity; hence, it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing [defending] party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights", and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed, witnesses or evidence may have been lost or no longer available, etc., such that it is no longer a just resolution to grant the plaintiff's claim. Laches is associated with the maxim of equity, "Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones [that is, those who sleep on their rights]." Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches.
Keith...I am not going to speculate on the strategy of counsel. My words thus far come from counsels public statements and Camera in the Courtroom.
I do not believe WDDD is in an awkward position. I do believe WDDD is sitting exactly where counsel wants us to be. There are nuances and a legal dance that must be completed before we cross the finish line. Susman and Godfrey are the conductors if you will.
ATVI already knows how much is on the line. There counsel stated it very clearly in Camera in the Courtroom. "Your honor my client may loose billions." I replayed those words many times because I could not believe it. You can feel free and Google it as it is in the public domain.
I do not believe there is any unknown here. All one needs to do is realize the brain trust, intellect, and savvy, of Susman Godfrey. They spent nine months researching this case before they decided to take it. Then they agreed to take it on contingency. Go research the cases and dollar amounts they go for. If you go to there website you will be enlightened about what they are planning on. Of course it is in generalities.
Many people here call the PTAB crooked. Maybe it is maybe it is not. What I do know is if they try to pull a fast one the appeals process will take care of a poor decision as they have in the recent past with other cases. Also Supreme Court Justice Roberts several months ago put the PTAB on notice. I do not believe Justice Roberts is a man that you would want to antagonize.
Your final comment I find disturbing. Judge Casper has had this on her docket for a very long time. Your assumption that it will take a long time is only an uninformed opinion. I believe if you research Judge Casper's words (Camera in the Courtroom) and writings you will find an alternate mind set.
Based upon Camera in the Courtroom Judge Casper made it clear that these were two separate issues that would be handled at two separate hearings in order to keep the entire issue clear and concise.
Per Susman and Godfrey response. The refiling did not occur at that time as it would take extra time to get into court for the hearing against ATVI. The first goal was to prove by a jury trial that there was infringements. Then the refiling would occur in the form of an appeal to Judge Caspers three years ruling.
Counsel was confident once a judgement of infringement was handed down having additional years added would take time but would not be an insurmountable case. After that then the other infringers would be notified. At one time on this board there were 25 titles called out.
That was my conclusion. Then you would agree that this laches doctrine would not have bearing on the subject as some here assert?
In my mind it is not an issue. Perhaps to others it is. The reference to the laches doctrine makes no sense to me in this case which is why I cited the USC and wanted an explanation as to why the doctrine is more important than law.
Susman Godfrey were never worried about this issue. He stated without mincing words that the first goal was to establish the infringement. In doing so if WDDD was limited in years he will then file for an appeal to receive the lost years and have them applied to the end of the patent. This will effectively give stock holders 15 years of revenue.
Based upon ATVI attorney stating, "this could cost my client billions". I believe Susman Godfrey hit the target.
Louise I looked at USC 35 286 which specifically uses the "except". Then if you go to USC 35 254 it expressly states "whenever a mistake". That being stated how do you justify your words.
USC 35 286 which states
Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.
So then I looked at
35 U.S. Code § 254 - Certificate of correction of Patent and Trademark Office mistake
Whenever a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, is clearly disclosed by the records of the Office, the Director may issue a certificate of correction stating the fact and nature of such mistake, under seal, without charge, to be recorded in the records of patents. A printed copy thereof shall be attached to each printed copy of the patent, and such certificate shall be considered as part of the original patent. Every such patent, together with such certificate, shall have the same effect and operation in law on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising as if the same had been originally issued in such corrected form. The Director may issue a corrected patent without charge in lieu of and with like effect as a certificate of correction.
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 809; Pub. L. 93–596, §?1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §?1000(a)(9) [title IV, §?4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §?13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906.)
Louis can you show via USC that your explanation is valid? Your last sentence you used the word "may" as opposed to a definitive word. My understanding was that once this was won. Susman Godfrey will file for the years lost and have them put on the end of the suit. That is in the USC due to the USPTO clerical error.
Again separate fact from opinion.
Louis...what does the 2007 statement have to do with anything of fact and reality regarding the current court cases that can be used as precedent, current laws, potential corruption, and judicial strategy of this case?
Would you please separate your opinion from fact in a lucid manner and make us all smart considering you went to law school. If you are unable to separate the two please keep your opinion to yourself.
Does anyone know if other infringing companies have been put on notice regarding a win in this case? If so, when did that occur?
Just in like Winnie the Pooh the character Eeyore....there is one in every crowd.
It is sad you have such low regard for the inevitable. May I suggest you read the following.
35 U.S.C. 255 Certificate of correction of applicant’s mistake.
Whenever a mistake of a clerical or typographical nature, or of minor character, which was not the fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, appears in a patent and a showing has been made that such mistake occurred in good faith, the Director may, upon payment of the required fee, issue a certificate of correction, if the correction does not involve such changes in the patent as would constitute new matter or would require reexamination. Such patent, together with the certificate, shall have the same effect and operation in law on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising as if the same had been originally issued in such corrected form.
What this means is the years lost can be tacked onto the end. Yes this will be traded with a multiple. Yes the enfringers will be paying for ten to fifteen years after this is settled. Use your brain and connect the dots. ATVI counsel stated in court their client could loose billions. You can Google that for yourself. The remaining companies may not be behemoths of the industry but if you combine their sales you will also be in the billions annually.
So even if there is no treble initially and the ruling is 6% of 2 billion you would be somewhere in the $3p/s range after legal fees, taxes, etc. Then use a multiple of your choosing. Then consider the ongoing royalties for ten to fifteen years.
After you consider the above please comment back to me with an intelligent rebuttal of fact that your current position has more merit than mine.
Thank you for the answer. I was curious about your view points and consistency of words and thoughts. I appreciate your words because as you state LAW is all that matters.
Voisyboy123 and Perkins 78 I understand where your perspectives are derived from which I can respect but allow me to clarify my perspective.
Dr. Langer is an amazing scientist that I admire. I spent three months reading about his background and accomplishment as well as probably 10 hours of reviewing YouTube videos. He and Edison are in a league all there own. I also agree that the trials for the FDA so far have advanced science. I am sure that regardless the outcome science has been advanced in a positive manner. I am sure that the Jand J's, Stryker's, and other interested parties are watching Invivo as they watch hundreds of other possibilities every day. I am also sure that Jefferies does believe that $13p/s is a target for there published objectives. I have read others that have speculated much higher numbers.
Now my perspective takes a more conservative approach. I am not a gambler. I have no time or interest in games such as poker and horse track betting which are based upon "chance." At this time people that overvalue Invivo or any other company are taking a "chance" that it will be the next be hit. The fact is unless you sit on the FDA review board you do not know the truth nor the power to approve or disapprove these new treatments. You can deduce that since the FDA now suggests a "control group" that they themselves are taking a conservative approach. This suggestion is quit telling to me. On to the comment about Jeffries that places a $13p/s value. Jeffries has a LARGE stake in the financial outcome of this company so of course they want to give a high valuation. After all who would not want to double or triple there money within 1-2 years. There are other analyst and "financial experts" that have placed $40p/s on this company and then follow up by saying they have a financial interest in the company. It is to their self interest to speak in grandiose terms. I am a value investor. I invest, opposite of chance, by analysis. Analysis taught by Ben Graham, Charley Munger, and Warren Buffet to name a few. I do not believe any rationale person would accuse any of these men as being less than successful. Therefore there methodologies must be cogent. I then add into the mix an understanding of dark pools, algorithmic trading, deals that do not have to be immediately reported by qualified investors, and finally what warrants could give license to in the hands of a PT Barnum type personality.
Finally, your words have not changed my mind because the facts are Invivo will not generate revenue for several years which could hurt a persons opportunity costs for return in other investments. The CEO has stated that company plans have been pushed back until 2017 due to various reasons. Then you have the FDA approval which could take a year for the approval(s). So now you are into 2018 before we know if the United States, Canada, and the EU will make a positive ruling. If this does go into the end of 2017-2018 and beyond authorized shares will have to be sold in order to raise funds to continue the companies day to day operation. If this occurs there is a dilution to the current share holders. This is why I am surprised it went up at all.
While I can respect your perspective it does not set aside the facts of no revenues for two years minimum. Gel not being approved for two years as a combination. I just cannot arrive at the price level of support of $9-10 p/s. If you place money on the table for a gamble then I would agree but if you are a value investor and have researched the intrinsic value then this is a stock that is worth 86 cents per share.
Based upon your words I will assume you were present during the hearing. I have one question, if in fact you were there. Did the lawyers for Bungie/Activision looked like they had been reprimanded by the teacher, stuttered because of there less than stellar argument, or appeared to have egg on there face?
I realize you probably are not an attorney or programming expert but again if you were there you obviously observed and concluded something.
I remember the look on Bungie/Activision attorney in the Camera in the Courtroom proceeding bellow out to the judge," But your honor this will cost my client Billions of Dollars." LOL! This scene is a recurring thought I have that brings me great laughter every week. It reminded me of a kid who knew they were getting a spanking but did not know how bad it would be.
Perhaps when you have a moment you can decrypt your message.
Why would you expect more than 10%? I am surprised it moved at all. The move was based on emotion as opposed to reality of thought. While eventually this maybe a hit. There is no revenue for several years. At least another year before the approval for HDE from FDA. More time beyond that for the gel to be used as a combination. Don"t get caught up by the hype.
I agree that her quality of life has improved since she is not bed ridden and on a respirator which would have been her fate before INVIVO.
The stock decreasing is of high probability based upon my observations and life experience. I have lived and visited several countries (EU) that have socialized medicine which on the surface is a great idea but horrible if you live it. Two years ago I wanted a steroid shot for inflammation but was offered narcotics instead because it was cheaper and when I offered to pay cash for services rendered from a private clinic and doctor. I was refused as that is against the law in those countries. The answer from the doctor was, "We do not know what steroids do to the human body," at which I laughed in the doctors face and did not take the narcotics. I had to visit my US doctor months later to receive treatment while I suffered in pain
The paperwork and approvals in the EU must be horrendous in those countries that prescribe to socialized theories and practices and the doctors are not on par with US doctors expertise based on personal experiences.
You suggested 2017 for approval. I would bet closer to 2018-2019 before the approval. Do your own DD but do it carefully.
Second Implant Patient
The link below is a few days old showing Jesi Stracham getting ready for a race. While she has made great strides she had to be picked up and placed into the race cart. I was hoping by this point she would have advanced further in her recovery.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BIfoBvhBPq2/?hl=en&taken-by=stracham820
Thanks for the input but you need to make me smart. What does filters have to do with the price of tea in China and this case?
I do not believe you are missing anything.
The priority date has to do with a conference held in 1995 and who was first to disclose or use WDDD technology.
The financials are nothing more than empty words by a desperate group that does not have enough evidence to get there way in the ruling. They want to paint WDDD as a "troll" that only has one goal which is to waste the courts time and review boards time. LOL. If it was a waste of time Judge Casper would not have allowed for this to move trial and go to jury trial. Before Activision/Bungie began this process of straw grasping.
As for the thought of a corrupt board. If the review board rules against WDDD then Judge Roberts will have the opportunity to make good on his promises. I do not believe the large companies that hold billions of dollars of IT patents will want that either which would/could nullify some or all of their patents which would anger stock holders and cause major problems in the market place.
Wow I thought I was board...but thanks for the creativity.
I stand corrected I meant to say Ron Brivitch not Mark Pesce. None the less the content does not change. I would encourage a complete reading. Go to #18 c and d page 5 of 7.
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01321/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8145998/03-15-2016-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2019-Declaration_of_Ron_Britvich/
For those that have time open the link below and read for yourself what the position of each party is.
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01321/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8145998/
I checked with a close friend who is a computer nerd by profession. I asked him if a programmer wrote a program and within the program he left his electronic signature and other details would that indeed prove he was the author of the program? He answered yes in the computer programming world programmers and companies leave the electronic mark to prove ownership and proprietary rights. This is what Mark Pesce did and stated in his deposition. The fact that someone used psychedelics is not a profound show stopper. It actually demonstrates honesty. Ask yourself would any of my family, friends, and co-workers ever admit to such behavior? I know of no one who would. Yet he is honest enough to speak about his past which does not discredit his accomplishments, intellect, and skill set.
http://www.programmersparadox.com/2008/01/14/sign-your-work/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_signing
I then asked about the "change log", the dates and information held within it as stated by Mark Pesce? He responded that the change log has everything to do with it.
As for the "proxy" you refer to. I am sure it does matter at some level but I do not believe it and of itself will make or break the case because there are to many other facts that cannot be refuted by Bungie and Activision.
Finally, I remember Activision counsel stating in open court in the "Camera in the Courtroom" program that his client will loose billions. If Activision/Bungie had clean hands they would not make this statement.
I encourage longs and shorts to read all the data, apply common sense,
and ask yourself....Why would there be BILLIONS of dollars at stake?
Officially you are correct but in reality someone steered WDDD to the attorney of record handling the review board. I have to believe for cohesion if nothing else that all attorneys are communicating regularly to attain a win.
I spent the last seven hours reading all of the data from January 2016 to the present that will be heard on August 17 and 18. Worlds witness Mark D Pesce hit the nail on the head not only with dates but with explanation of "skilled in the art". Bungie and Activision will have to prove invalidity and it maybe they will prove some invalid but to prove 51 claims are invalid is laughable. Even if you argue there are only less than 51 claims it is clear that a smear campaign is all Bungie Activision have left in their bag of legal tricks. Of course the review board could rule 100% against Worlds but then the review board will have a tremendous amount of explaining to do to when the giants of the industry are being infringed and want their dues.Then again if they are not careful, fair, and justified in there ruling Judge Roberts (USSC) may take them to task and implement what was alluded to several months ago. I encourage all that have skin in the game to read and digest the full scope of the situation.
After you read and digest the data you may want to ask yourself why the stock is so cheap, whom will it benefit to drive the price south, and why is there the large amount of activity after hours on certain days.
JMHO
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01321/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8145998/06-01-2016-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2017-2-Corrected_Ex_2017___Declaration_of_Mark_D_Pesce/
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01321/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8145998/
What is your source?
Assuming you are correct the company has no earnings. Who would pay 13p/s for a company that has no earnings?
Yes I am aware of there patents and the 67% conversion is excellent. I know some believe they will receive the green light from the FDA earlier than anticipated.
Yet you are still two years out before there is a cash flow.
While I remain amazed that the first patient Jordan Fallis is not bed ridden living an abysmal life.I would have thought by now he would be walking with the aid of braces and without any other aid such as a cane, walker, or chair because of his past progress. He continues to use his chair.
https://www.instagram.com/jordanlfallis/
His latest posting as of yesterday.
"Fell pretty hard outta my chair and had to get surgery on my knee, healing up pretty good tho. Wish me a fast recovery." (click on the picture to read postings)
The second patient, Jesi Stracham, also appears to have a full vibrant life but as with Jordan uses a chair.
https://www.instagram.com/stracham820/
Those points you bring out of higher prices and involve millions of shares I also agree with as fact. However, there is still the matter of 500,000 plus shares valued at a maximum of $3.87. In my mind if someone is awarded these shares due to dilution or if they are purchased has no bearing in my mind regarding my original question.
My original question is why would someone buy in the $5.00-$6.00 range when there are clearly 500,000 plus shares at a maximum price at $3.87. When I attended math classes no matter how you arrived at a maximum value of $3.87 the value was still a maximum of $3.87 regardless the method.This question is a matter of academic inquiry of mathematics and not rooted in a desire to cause a frivolous argument. Thank you for your input.
So back to the original question. If there is anyone that can demonstrate why purchasing shares in the $5-$6 price range is prudent and has a cogent analysis in support of that action versus purchasing at or below $3.87 per share I would be interested in reading the words of superior mind(s) that could enlighten my mind and mathematical acuity.
Read all of the S 3.
The first S 3 that was posted here at the top of the board on 6-9-2016
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=71698269
Perkin78.. you made mention that this was a buying opportunity at the $5 level and that once it finds its bottom it would slowly move up and I agree with you on these points of the bottom and moving up but I am trying to process the context of the $5 you used. Was the $5 used an example? The reason is in one of the filings of June 9 2016 there is 587,950 shares that is anticipated to have a maximum per share price of $3.87 due to dilution and other reasons. My next question is why would anyone buy at the $5 level when it appears in the near future a minimum of $3.87 or lower is on the horizon?
Curious....lets assume your hypothesis is incorrect for whatever reason and the supreme court hands down a favorable ruling, the patent review process rules in favor for WDDD, and then we revisit Judge Caspers' Court room and the jury is favorable with an award and there is treble damages for the sake of argument, then lets say an appeal is filed with the Supreme Court and they refuse to hear the case. Then what do you think? Despite this being a long shot remembering that Activision has stated that they refuse to settle.