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.
If you had read the filing documents on the MSJ you would have seen that Susman did not believe a certificate of correction (coc) was needed since the reference to the provisional patent application by number and date was included within the formal patent application and continuance applications and that a technical data sheet did not exist at the time of the filings as well as the USPTO's acknowledgement of it's error.
The courts ruling is appealable as has been discussed numerous times on this board
To state that Susman was unaware of the need for a COC is another example of your lack of comprehension of the facts and a stubborn incorrect belief in your interpretation on the law and the course this case has taken.
Louis , your repeated misrepresentations on the process and course of this case coupled with an inability to understand filings underscores your dogged fixation on your own, wrong point of view.
For example, claims challenges and the winnowing process of claims is standard in IP litigation, either thru the Markman process, discovery or IPR. When key claims survive they provide the basis not only for the instant litigation but for all future litigation.
Second, motions for summary judgement are always attempted by defendants in an attempt to dismiss a case, once an MSJ is survived the company is stronger in a courts eyes. SG knows and expects such delays.
Third, your dilution projections analysis based on averaging the shares issued from 100 mil to 250 mil shares demonstrates your inability to read and understand public filings. If you had read them you would understand that those shares were issued as a result of unwinding the Hudson Bay and Iroquois notes and resolving the Hudson Bay lawsuit which would have cost the company additional funds an tied it up for any other funding for years,similarly paying off the balance of the last convertible notes that provided the company with funds and future funds through warrants.
There are other ways the company can raise funds if needed without issuing additional shares but you are fixated on your own limited world view.
It would be interesting if enough WDDD shareholders bought a few shares in ATVI and hired a law firm that specializes in class action litigation against publicly listed companies on a contingency basis to file a shareholders lawsuit against ATVI for lack of material disclosure to shareholders in any of their SEC filings on the WDDD litigation and it's potential exposure to ATVI as was stated publicly by their own law firm in an open Federal Court hearing this case.
Judge Casper's ruling stated that the case could proceed with the damages limited to the date of the certificate of corrections going forward or the current case could be dismissed and new case could be filed but only from the date of the corrections. Worlds agreed to proceed with the ongoing case with the damages limitation without precluding an appeal of her decision.
I have checked with a knowledgable lawyer and to appeal Judge Casper's ruling it must to to an appellate court
I agree with you that law is law however Judges are human and an appeal would be held in an appeal court not in her court and a reversal of Judge Casper's ruling would possibly be a slap. Judges don't want or like reversals on their record of their issued decisions.
As I understand the appeal process on the decision of damages limitation
Re: the certificate of correction ruling by Judge Casper, an appeal can be filed anytime before the end of an eventual trial.
From a strategic position I think that Susman would not want to alienate Judge Casper by having an appeal overturn her decision prior to a trial taking place.
Since that option does not expire it seems a plausible tactic to wait until the right time until after a trial is underway.
If an appeal is successful that would put more pressure on ATVI to settle.
Explains a lot
Louis, if the reasoning you are ascribing to Worlds is that filtering techniques were well known and thus obvious, I would counter that no prior art addresses avatar filtering within a field of view anywhere solely or in combination and in particular no references to 3D avatars in anything the PTAB has under review.
The PTAB and Appellate courts would have to find prior art, which by law they are prohibited from doing.
Of course both tribunals can do as they please but have to craft a very cogent rationale.
What is a scam about a 4 year patent litigation against the largest game company in the World represented by one of the recognized top patent litigation firms in the World.
Bungies position at the PTAB is that Funkhouser describes filtering avatars in and out of the field of view and combined with Funkhouser '93 which describes level of detail with texture mapping on objects within the field of view, that those in combination cover "determining" and "filtering" of avatars within the field of view even under Phillips. Neither of those prior art references speak to a 3D avatar which was why the panel kept hammering Bungie on the definition of "avatars" as defined in the patents and construed by Judge Casper in her Markman order.
Also the clear difference between an avatar and an object. In any case even Bungie's expert admitted that Funkhouser did not describe filtering of avatars WITHIN the field of view.
The PTAB is going to have to do some creative wiggling if they want to get over that set of facts.
If you had read the recent S1 you would know that Worlds raised $350k
And have warrants for an additional $420k
Besides every company in the 2016 $19 Bil. MMORG market who are clearly aware of WDDD's patents and litigation against ATVI which forms a foundation for willful infringement and potential treble damages.
Also factor in the explosion in VR funding and future revenues if this passes the PTAB challenge.
See below stats
https://www.vbprofiles.com/markets/5613e6b9ac0902dc560008a2
What settlement amount have you based your projected share price on? what multiple have you applied?
What other settlements have you factored into your assumption?
Seems there's a number of unexplained open ended factors.
Fidelity is not involved in WDDD's stock, they could not invest in a penny stock. What I pointed out was that Morris Smith who ran Fidelity is.
This is a reputable source of dats, remember that there are 6 IPR's in WDDD's case each having different arguments by Bungie.
Below is the case I referred to that recently overturned the PTAB and was discussed during Worlds hearing.
Andrew H. DeVoogd
Matthew A. Karambelas
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.Federal Circuit Emphasizes that an Obviousness Analysis Based on Common Sense Must be Supported by Substantial Evidence and Explained with Sufficient Reasoning
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing practitioners important guidance for relying on common sense in an obviousness inquiry, the Federal Circuit on August 10, 2016 handed down its decision in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 2015-2073, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14652 *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016), vacating the PTAB’s decision below. The petitioners had only relied on an expert declaration and testimony as support for their position before the PTAB that common sense rendered a patent obvious. Id. at *19-20. The Federal Circuit rejected the PTAB’s holding in favor of petitioners as “conclusory and unsupported by substantial evidence[.]” Id. at *22-23, 26-27.
The patent in this case is U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843, owned by Arendi S.A.R.L., and against which Apple, Google, and Motorola filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR). The ’843 Patent allows a user to coordinate with two computer programs: (1) to display a document with the first computer program while (2) accessing and conducting a search using a second computer program. Id. at *2. The patent discloses mechanisms for analyzing the document to identify the presence of name and address information in the document (e.g., from designators such as street, city, zip code, “Mr.,” “Mrs.” etc.), to determine if it can be used in the searches as part of the second computer program. Id. at *2-3. The claimed invention then displays the search results to the user, who can select the additional information obtained from the search for insertion into the document. Id. at *3.
Only one prior art reference was discussed on appeal, U.S. Patent No. 5,859,636 (“the Pandit reference”), which involved a computer program that recognized a phone number in a class of text in a document, and provided suggested actions to the user, such as “Add to address book.” Id. at *5-6. The Federal Circuit focused on the question whether “it would be ‘common sense’ to a person of ordinary skill in the art to search for the telephone number that is detected in a document when the ‘Add to address book’ option disclosed in Pandit is selected.” Id. at *6. The PTAB in its Final Written Decision held that the Pandit reference rendered the ’843 Patent obvious, because it is “reasonable to presume, [that] as a matter of common sense and at the time of the invention,” upon searching for the phone number in the database, the name and/or address associated with the telephone number would be displayed to the user. Id. at *8 (citing Apple Inc. v. Arendi S.A.R.L., IPR2014-00208, 2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 6053 at *10 (PTAB June 9, 2015)) (emphasis added).
The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s decision, noting that while it is “true that common sense and common knowledge have their proper place in the obviousness inquiry[,]…common sense…inform[s] the analysis of obviousness if explained with sufficient reasoning.” Id. at *10 (emphasis added). The Court emphasized three important aspects of using “common sense” in an obvious analysis. First, while common sense is typically invoked to provide a known motivation to combine, it is not typically invoked to supply a missing claim limitation. Second, if common sense is invoked to supply a missing claim limitation from the prior art, the missing limitation must be “unusually simple” and straightforward—it cannot be a limitation that plays a major role in the claimed invention. Third, when common sense is invoked, it cannot be used as a “wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art[.]” Id. at *11-13.
Here, the petitioners argued before the PTAB that “if searching a database for data was in the prior art, then searching that database for a telephone number is merely common sense.” Id. at *20. The PTAB agreed, extrapolating from its finding that substantial evidence existed regarding searches in general to conclude that searches for a telephone number were also disclosed. Id. at 21-23. The Federal Circuit disagreed. The evidence did not support such a conclusory extrapolation, and the PTAB’s leap was a bridge too far. Id. at *23-26.
This decision underscores for practitioners that common sense, while enjoying a proper place in the obviousness inquiry, does not obviate the need for substantial evidentiary support. In particular, the Federal Circuit emphasized that petitioners should “clearly explain[] with concrete examples” the benefits of performing steps for which they are arguing would be obvious, even where “common sense” might suggest it, where the steps are not “evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art.” Id. at *23 (citations omitted). Common sense might be common, but here the Federal Circuit made clear that it cannot be unsupported and conclusory.
Once again your comments are baseless, supported with absolutely nothing.
In fact Worlds filed the action against AtVI in 2012 so there you are incorrect in that assumption of more favorable climate.
What deal was offered for settlement by ATVI that Worlds could have taken? Is this further speculation or do you have any verifiable facts?
So far we have seen you make statements that are demonstratively wrong i.e. VRNG wanting to buy Worlds, timing if the lawsuit and settlement offered that were spurned.
What other enlightening insights do you have?
If you want to consider smart money interested in WDDD, look at the S1 closely.
You'll see Morris Smith as one of the investors. Even though this is chump change for him. He was hand picked by Peter Lynch to run Fidelity Magellan when Lynch stepped down and took it from $12 Bil. To $18 Bil in a couple of years.
That at least tells me that he believes that there is a good shot at something positive possible.
You've made a statement that Worlds should have made a deal with VRNG. On what basis do you assume a deal was there to be made?
Are you just throwing out baseless comments.
Second, you have to learn how to read a registration statement.
It's impossible for the company to issue 280 million share with an authorized cap of 250 mil.
The oral presentation was more than closing arguments.
When the transcripts become available that will become clear.
There were highly legal and technical
Points raised by the judges indicating they has questions they wanted clarity on as well as interpretation of newly issued federal Appeal Court rulings that impact and limit the PTAB, such as their inability to use "common sense or logic would dictate" in their ruling without clear and demonstrable evidence that each of the elements presented by Bungie was contained in the prior art in order to come to a finding of invalidation.
Non of the most recent Appeal Court ruling were in the briefs.
Although they have a leaning based on their preliminary ruling to institute the full IPR, they also need the evidence and explanation of the prior art's methodology to come to a definitive ruling that would stand the scrutiny of that very Appeals court.
That is in fact the purpose of over 5 hours of oral hearings.
The PTAB has to consider, write and review a through opinion for every claim of every patent asserted in the IPR.
This process requires not only review of the claims but also the file wrapper history for each patent against every piece of evidence filed in each of the 6 IPR's.
Remember thus is also not the only case these Judges are busy with.
The PTAB have a statutory obligation to complete the entire process within one year. Historically the final opinions are issued close to the due date.
Since this is not 1 single IPR but 6,
I would highly doubt they will issue a ruling within a few weeks.
God willing, no pun intended.
I would say that Dave's analysis is well reasoned. Particularly since he has experience in valuation.
That said there is a natural tension in what Susman would find acceptable
compared to Worlds.
Based on Susmans history in litigation with ATVI, they historically don't settle until just before trial or shortly thereafter.
Bungie on the other hand is an unknown and has increased it's potential exposure with the IPR however I believe they probably want to see how the PTAB ruling goes before they entertain any settlement discussions.
Just my opinion.
I concur with those sentiments 100%
What I believe you are seeing is whatever shares that were left of the conversion by the note holder prior to the retirement of the balance of the note is being sold into the market in conjunction with those that are taking a profit from the share price rise from $ .01 to $ .03.
As those remaining shares are absorbed I would expect a slow rise in the s/p.
Remember this stock was at $ .14 less than a year ago when the IPR was still in the initial preliminary phase and the note holders hadn't begun converting.
Now the huge overhang is gone and a ruling is 15 weeks away after good oral arguments, favorable Fed Circuit decisions and a strong likelihood of a number of the Worlds claims surviving validity challenges.
He was EDVA i.e.Eastern District Court of Virginia where he and a group of lawyers and investors were offering solid analysis on patent plays.
I believe he lost a lot on Vringo and Parkervision reversals after large wins and has moved on to biotech.
Nothing was raised on Bungie acting as a Activision proxy.
I think that since Worlds had fairly good momentum with the Board it wouldn't have been productive to raise the proxy issue again since they have opined on that twice already and risk alienating them on the issues that matter.
My take away observations from the PTAB hearing are overall positive.
While no particular comments by either the judges or lawyers will forecast the ultimate ruling there were some definitive statements that I found quite important for Worlds.
The agreement that the priority date of the provisional patent will not be challenged offers a higher and earlier threshold for prior art challenges.
The acquiescence of the Phillips standard rather than BRI is significant in narrowing the construing of claims
In that regard Judge Easthom asked Bungies lawyer how the board could square Judge Caspers Markman order on the definition of an avatar being a 3D representation of the online user with Bungies proposal as simple a graphic representation of the user. By appearing to narrow that definition the reliance on prior art appears to become harder for Bungie to overcome.
On the claims covering the maximum number of avatars - N and N prime
As a comparative step in determining which avatars could be displayed i felt the board understood and agreed, Bungie simply didn't offer a compelling rebuttal on this set of claim issues.
Consensus on the definition of "determining" was complicated. Worlds argued that this was a process done at the client prior to being sent to the graphic pipeline as a separate pre function to the rendering engine output to the display.
Bungie argued that the rendering engine and display are all one process that Funkhouser covers in his prior art. Worlds pointed out that even Bungies expert agreed that Funhouse did not address filtering of avatars within the field of view, which is a core element of Worlds patent claims necessary for load balancing and crowd control.
The complex and unclear issue was proving that Worlds conceptualization and reduction to practice antedated Funkhouser. Although Worlds provided source code log files proving the early development and implementation of "crowd control" pre Funkhouser supported by affidavits from worlds developers and project leaders pre release as well as Wall Street Journal article and press release on Worlds Chat, the board replied" how can we be certain that the conceptualization and implementation were in fact utilized in the initial product launch and not updated after Funkhouser's paper
I took this to be an attempt by certain members of the board to look for a rationale to accept Funkhouser.
On this point my gut tells me they are torn between Bungie's argument that Funhouser filtered avatars on the client when a user turned and limited the avatars outside of the field of view and the prima faca evidence that Worlds launched its product and thousands of people downloaded it and it worked therefore proving that the features of "filtering avatars within the field if view" were implemented as claimed, otherwise the system would have failed and could not have handled to flood of users on line. Thats a fairly strait proof of fact in my book. If they choose to consider the reality of the products functionality. after all that is what Worlds Chat was all about, hosting large numbers of people in a 3d virtual space.
We'll have to wait until the ruling but I believe Worlds will survive with a number of claims ruled as valid.
If some are invalidated then the next issue based on which claims are ruled invalid is whether an appeal is filed by Worlds or Bungie and does the Federal case get rescheduled or does the Federal Court continue the stay pending the outcome of an appeal.
Overall I believe Worlds came through the oral arguments very well.
Many of the messages on this board have links and attachments to factual court documents, reports, rulings and thoughtful legal analysis that many have taken the time to offer to others following Worlds over it's 4 year litigation in the hope of offering the readers a wealthy source of data to make their own judgements on and discuss with those who are interested.
The facts will be reported and verified by the transcripts.
You can do a lot of your own DD
By reviewing my prior posts and determine if they have been honest and objective.
I encourage everyone to do their own
Analysis.
What I or anyone says on these boards will not effect the sp in any significant way.
all that these boards hopefully offer are observations and guidance
All in good time Dave.
All I will say in reply is that I do in fact have particular expertise in technical and legal matters pertaining to this case to objectively opine.
I will be attending with a Patent attorney who has specific experience presenting before PTAB panels.
I will be attending the hearing tomorrow.
I have spent a substantial amount of time studying the details of this case and although no ruling will be made for months it is an opportunity in a public venue to hear the presentations of both sides and most importantly the questions the PTAB judges ask of each side.
Important insight can be gleaned from the type of questions and responses as well as the focus on particular claims will be informative in my opinion.
The recent proxy in june which was discussed in depth on this board.
Kidrin never made any statements regarding increasing the outstanding.
You may have misunderstood remarks concerning any need for a reverse split.
Logic would seem to indicate the need for additional shares to cover conversions and needs for additional funding.
I willing to bet 1 mil shares that there will be no reverse split before a catalyst event. Any takers?
No, that is the rescheduled PTAB oral argument hearing date
No, based on the statue and time lines by statute, if the decision is due by Nov 30th than the Phillips standard applies
No, Worlds can institute infringement actions after the patents expire.
The damages are limited to 6 years prior to the date of the patents expiration.
From Worlds IPR response.
However, as the Board noted in its Institution Decision, for expired patents, the claim construction standard is not according to the broadest reasonable interpretation. Rather, the Board reviews the claims of an expired patent according
to a district court’s standard. See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir.2012). In Phillips v. AWH Corp., the court set forth the principle that words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, construed to preserve validity in case of ambiguity. 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO, a Division of Varco, L.P., IPR2014-00265, slip op. at 7 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013)
(paper 11).
For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the expiration date of the
patent is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest related application. 35 U.S.C.
§ 154(a)(2). This filing date of the earliest related application does not go back to the provisional application, but rather to the earliest related non-provisional application. Id.; see also 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(3).1 Each of the Worlds patents being challenged by Bungie in six related IPRs claims benefit to an earliest filed nonprovisional application No. 08/747,420, filed on Nov. 12, 1996. See, e.g., Ex. 1001
at 1; Ex. 2041 at 19; Ex. 2042 at 1; Ex. 2043 at 1; Ex. 2044 at 1.
Thus, the expiration date of each Worlds patents is 20 years from Nov. 12,1996, or Nov. 12, 2016, plus any patent term adjustment or extension. The patent term adjustment/extension set forth on the face of each patent at issue is as follows:
Further, a final written decision in this inter partes review must be issued no
more than twelve months from the date of institution, or Nov. 30, 2016. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(c).
Thus, the overwhelming likelihood is that this inter partes review will
be completed and a final written decision will issue after the ‘856 patent and ‘501 patent are expired, and concomitantly with the expiration of the ‘558 patent.
Further, the terms being construed in the ‘690 patent are substantially identical to the terms being construed in at least the ‘856 patent and the ‘558 patent.
The proper standard for claim construction in this inter partes review is the standard when the inter partes review is completed and when the final written decision issues. On this basis, the claim construction standard for at least the expired patents in these proceeding is according to Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), not the broadest reasonable
Not at all.
On point 1 of The SCOTUs decision Worlds IPR will be reviewed using the Phillips narrow claim construction standard used my Judge Casper due to the patents expiration date prior to the date of the IPR decision.
Point 2 concerning the right to appeal the preliminary decision to institute the IPR, worlds has already responded to the institution decision and has a scheduled oral hearing in August therefore Worlds continues to proceed without a delay in an appeal.