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.
Dilution
At least we were warned a few months ago.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1292519/000110465916123821/a16-12358_18k.htm
Item 5.03. Amendments to Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws; Change in Fiscal Year.
On May 26, 2016, InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) held its 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”). At the Annual Meeting, the Company’s stockholders approved an amendment to the Company’s Articles of Incorporation to increase the number of shares of authorized common stock from 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 shares (the “Amendment”). Following stockholder approval of the Amendment, a Certificate of Amendment to the Company’s Articles of Incorporation was filed with the Secretary of State of Nevada on May 26, 2016, at which time the Amendment became effective.
If the below statement remains true. Does anyone know what the update on 5-11-16 contained?
Filed: 2/11/2016, Entered: None Court Filing
Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 198 Motion to Stay pending IPR proceedings for 3 months. Counsel to file joint status report by 5/11/16. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
The 2013 ruling was made by Judge Casper. If you go back to the camera in the courtroom video she explains herself. WDDD counsel is the one that stated after the 2013 time limit Judge Casper ruled upon that he was not concerned. He stated that the 2013 ruling could be appealed based upon the United States Code. In counsels statement he gave the exact number in the code. I believe it comes from USC 30 or 31.
ON this board approximately 1-2 years ago there were two Monte Carlo models on one the low would be 4.00 per share. The high end 8.20 per share. This model had the entire math variables broken down. The second has the value at 2.20- 3.80. I am not willing to spend all night searching but perhaps someone else will.
Perhaps all of you are correct but I do not see a settlement any where near 100 million. Judge Casper has limited this to a few years. I believe 2013 forward to expiration of patent. WDDD counsel has already stated over one year ago that he was not concerned over that issue.The reason is that portion of her judgement can be appealed based upon United States Code which clearly states that when the USPTO makes a clerical error the years of benefit lost to the patent owner will be tacked on to the back end of the patent. In this case the USPTO made a clerical error plain and simple. Counsel has not stated to my knowledge that he has changed his strategy or position regarding the appeal of years that are in question.
I also do not believe counsel would waste his time on 100m when he can wait an extra year or two and as ATVI attorney has stated, "This case could cost my client billions." If it will cost his client billions and the ATVI attorney admitted in court with audio and video rolling...it tells me one thing. ATVI is scared. They are putting on a brave cavalier facade all the while knowing the inevitable. They are on the ropes and they know they are being pummeled similar to a Joe Frazier vs Mohammed Ali fight. If it costs ATVI billions how much more will it cost the accumulation of the industry. In my mind counsel will press forward methodically marching forward to victory and line his and our pockets with real money not a 100m settlement.
JMHO
Not one word.
At which hospital did this occur?
Thank you for your comment but to clear the air as I need no mans comfort. Wow how you can take a simple question and turn it into I need "reassuarnce." LOLOLOL!!!
Rainmaker I have read thru them and have my own conclusion. Would you care to share what you believe the "subtleties" are and are not?
Assuming your speculation is correct and there were a settlement do you have any idea what the amount might be?
Below is a statement regarding Cuozzo vs. Speed Technology
BRIEF OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR ASSOCIATION
AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
CONCLUSION
Patent claims should be given the same scope in IPR proceedings that they are given in district court. The Federal Circuit’s decision to allow the Board to construe claims according to a different standard deprives bench, bar, and litigants alike of the clarity of having a single standard. Consistent with basic fairness, predictability, and the purpose of IPR
proceedings, the Court should uphold the principle that there is only one way to assess the validity of a claim in an issued patent.
I have read all of the conclusions for each brief and I am encouraged by the conclusions. If you take 30 minutes you can scan thru the same data. I would be interested in other thoughts.
SOURCE:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-lee/
Excellent read. Thanks for the link.
I do not know why and I will not speculate but I would think the CEO owes it to the shareholders to communicate with them.
I have sent two emails to Thom Kidrin and I left a message on a machine ten minutes ago at 617-803-0004. I told him as a shareholder that I was long and I would like to know what is going on and that I felt that many others would like an indication of the direction of this suit. I also expressed the understanding that due to corporate governance and legal strategy I realized every detail would not be discussed nor would I expect them to be discussed. However, as a shareholder I do expect some sort of communication either directly with me or come to this board at this website and let us all know.
If any of you communicate with Thom let him know communication is expected.
I researched further after my posts last evening and wanted to offer up the finishing touches of the reasons why I believe that Worlds Inc. has and continues to be infringed upon by Bungie/Activision and many other titles.
1. The link below is the Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review on December 7, 2015
http://ptabtrialblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/IPR2015-01319-Decision-on-Institution-20151207.pdf
The reason I begin with this is it outlines on page 38 the exact claims that the review board believes are "obvious". This is one of the two requirements in USC 35 103 and USC 35 102 required to obtain a patent. A patent cannot be obvious to one skilled in the art.
2. My first question I asked myself is how did Worlds ever become the creator of such technology. If you use Google browser and listen to the entire 15:39 movie you will hear Steven Spielberg and other industry leaders discussing the answer to these questions. I would advise that you take notes and pay attention to the dates which is 1995 but there is no specific month stated. The Starbright foundation discussed in the video was co founded by Spielberg and was a charity that helps children. So he put together a team to begin Starbright World. The year 1995 is important due to the decisions date of the Inter Partes Decision. There is a moment with no audio and a moment the screen goes blank. Be patient and listen.
https://archive.org/details/vw_starbright-pediatric-network-1995
This next link shows Spielberg interacting with children in different parts of the country and playing a game. This video has a few moments of no audio be patient and wait.
https://archive.org/details/vw_starbright-spielberg-video-highlights use Google for this link.
3. Then I asked myself when did Steven Spielberg come up with the idea to create an online virtual world. Something noone else had done in the manner Worlds Inc. created the technology. The reason I asked myself this question is USC 35 103 and USC 35 102 regarding obvious and originality that must be met. So I said if I can find a source that states Spielberg was putting this together before 1995 I would invalidate a portion of the Inter Partes Decision, in my opinion and mind.
http://www.wired.com/1996/09/starbright
In the 19th thru the 21st paragraph you will read the following
"Shortly after joining Starbright's board, Lee Rosenberg, a senior vice president at the William Morris Talent Agency and a founder of Triad Artists, arranged a large lunch meeting in 1993 for pediatric specialists, members of the entertainment industry, and representatives of companies like Br derbund and Microsoft. It was designed as a brainstorming session to find solutions to emotional and physical problems confronting critically ill children."
"The brainstormers came up with 25 projects. Seven, with various corporate partners, are in development, including Starbright, which has raised several million dollars. General Norman Schwarzkopf was drafted to head a campaign to raise US$60 million more."
"Everyone has agreed not to specify how much Starbright costs: "multimillions" is all they'll say. It's obviously not cheap. The more than 100 high-end PCs supplied by Intel, for example, retail for around $6,000 each. Worlds Inc. has devoted up to eight people at a time to Starbright. Sprint is supplying and maintaining seven DS3 connections, more than any of their corporate customers have."
The importance of this in my mind is that the Starbright World Project was conceived in 1993. Worlds Inc. was the creator. Again remember dates. In the Inter Partes Decision the dates went back as far as 1993. This would invalidate the conclusion of 90% of the "obvious" claims on page 38 of the decision. Again Worlds Inc. was first.
4. My next question was the date this technology was created. I have established it was conceived and began in 1993. Now I asked when was the technology created. Per the link it is 1994. Again the date is important because it supercedes most of the dates within the Inter Partes Decision. Again Worlds Inc. was first.
http://classic.rhizome.org/portfolios/artwork/59092/
5. Now I asked when was the technology debut. Answer November 8, 1995. Why is the important to me. It demonstrates that this technology was conceived in 1993. Created in 1994. Debut in 1995. Why is this important? Because it establishes the technology was original which is a requirement for a patent. Again remember the dates. Again Worlds Inc. was first.
http://www.worlds.com/news/PressReleases/pro08.html
6. Was this technology ever tested? Refer to the last paragraph.
http://variety.com/2000/more/news/starbright-universe-grows-1117790527/
This is important to me because it demonstrates it was working and not a concept on paper. Again Worlds Inc. was first.
7. WHo gives credit to Worlds Inc. for being the developer? The video above in point #2 above is the first. The second is the link below.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=XcEKP0ml18EC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=starbright+world+debut+to+public%27&source=bl&ots=Wbu2_VuBov&sig=VreXwdzK6YidXjUcaWSW1AbWc6c&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYravKi-PJAhVDnQ4KHX6SAQIQ6AEINzAD#v=onepage&q=starbright%20world%20debut%20to%20public'&f=false
You will want this article.
8. Then in November 1995 the first patent was filed. This is important to me because it demonstrates that from the beginning in 1993 this technology has never stopped evolving. This was a real technology and not a hobby by amateurs. Ms. Thiel was directly involved from November 1994 to February 1996 I was the creative director and producer at Worlds, Inc. of the initial system for the Starbright World project. After wards came Worlds Chat. Worlds Chat.
http://www.tamikothiel.com/starbright/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamiko_Thiel
I sent an email yesterday that we needed to speak but I have not received a response. I have his email as thom@worlds.com.
I do not think it would backfire on Worlds at all. If anything it only bolsters the fact that Worlds is the creator of the art. As I understand Prior Art as practiced by those skilled in the art is exactly what Steven Spielberg, The Wall Street Journal, and the 1995 Siggraph Symposium, and the author Mr. Funkhouser, that drafted the paper for the Symposium cumulatively and singularly prove. Worlds was first. There was no prior art to Worlds Creation. Therefore it is a fact that since Mr. Funkhouser was used as the Bungie expert which the patent review board was persuaded to temporarily lean towards stating, "there is a possibility that at least one claim will be invalid" is now incorrect in my mind. The positive to this is that per the decision of the patent review board stating that effectively immediately after the decision is published that a trial will commence. I have to believe that after reviewing the resumes of the three judges on the patent review board I conclude they are only doing there job and are considering all the data. Remember in there own words there is a possibility that one claim will be invalid. In my mind there is also a possibility that the sky may fall or a possibility that the Mississippi River and the Rio Grande River will dry up today but I believe the odds are in favor that neither of these things will happen today.
The review boards decision is on page 38 in the link below.
http://ptabtrialblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/IPR2015-01319-Decision-on-Institution-20151207.pdf
Data Stream thank you for the input. Once again proof from reputable people and media. Steven Spielberg, Wall Street Journal, 1995 Siggraph Symposium only bolster the validity of the claims Worlds asserts against Activision/Bungie and other titles. Yes other titles.
Yes I believe the patent review board flavored their decision in this manner. However, the quote below from page 38 of the patent review
board decision expressly states effective immediately there will be an institution of a trial. The reviewers are human and can make mistakes which is why there is an appeals process.
http://ptabtrialblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/IPR2015-01319-Decision-on-Institution-20151207.pdf
III. ORDER
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
review of claims 1–8, 10, 12, and 14–16 of the ’501 patent is instituted,
commencing on the entry date of this Decision;
FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the following
grounds of unpatentability:
Claims 1–6, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Funkhouser and Sitrick;
Claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Funkhouser,
Sitrick, and Wexelblat;
Claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Funkhouser,
Sitrick, and Funkhouser ’93;
Claims 1–6, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Durward;
Claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Durward and
Wexelblat; and
Claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Durward and
Schneider.
Even if there was a publishing deadline of four month, which is highly unlikely, that in my mind is not a problem because Tamiko states in the webpage that he was creating this in 1994. At the time Tamiko was employed by Worlds as creative director therefore Worlds technology was the creator. Again original and obvious obligations have been met per USC 35 103 and USC 35 102.
http://www.mission-base.com/tamiko/starbright/index.html
That is a question that in my mind can only be answered by the attorneys for Worlds considering most individuals are not included in the strategy meetings with the attorneys. In my mind I and my associates have not been able over the past three to understand why a boutique law firm would take the Worlds case on contingency and remain the attorneys of record unless they have an ace up their sleeve.
The short answer to your question is no but I am digging so time will tell.
To date I have not secured the specific date Steven Spielberg was speaking in this video. However that being said I would bet Spielberg's office will have the exact date if asked during discovery. I would also bet Tamiko and or the Starbright Foundation would have the exact date also if asked during discovery.
Beyond that for me the date Spielberg demoed the site is not a deal breaker. The reason is that the project began in 1994 per the web page which is prior to the Funkhouser paper at 1995 Siggraph Symposium, April 9-12, 1995. Again this proves and meets the legal standard that Worlds developed this before the paper was published and before the Symposium was held and those facts unequivacably cannot be denied by the patent review board or the highest paid patent attorneys Activision/Bungie can afford. USC 35 102 and USC 35 103 constantly speak about originality and obvious. In both cases Worlds has proven their case.
Steven Spielberg, Tamiko Thiel, and the Patent Review Board made the case for Worlds. Merry Christmas. If you are interested be patient and read every word and view every web page.
It is my assertion that the patent board reviewers were off base in their decision of "obviousness and the likely hood that one claim might not be valid." Follow the links below and come to your own conclusion. Feel free to give me an alternative view or agree either way I am open to other points of view.
1. The patent review board has a question of "obviousness". They further have a problem with the date April 12, 1995. Read the first paragraph for the short version or the entire text which I would encourage for a complete picture.
Bungie v. Worlds: Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review of All Challenged Claims IPR2015-01319 - See more at:
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/bungie-v-worlds-decision-instituting-inter-partes-review-all-challenged-claims#sthash.TLStKvpa.dpuf
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/bungie-v-worlds-decision-instituting-inter-partes-review-all-challenged-claims.
2. I downloaded the Funkhouser paper that was presented at the Siggraph Symposium held between April 9-12, 1995. It was a $15.00 fee and well worth the read. While there is merit using this paper as evidence it is incorrect and should not have been used to validate Bungie's assertion. The reason why it is invalid is the dates of the symposium and the word "obvious". In patent law it must not be obvious to persons practicing he art and it must be original as I understand the law. For those of you that do not know this paper was presented on behalf of Bungie and the author also testified in Bungie's behalf. Be patient and keep reading.
3. Tamiko Thiel is in the upper left corner in this link. Now read the first paragraph and notice the following: "From November 1994 to February 1996 I was the creative director and producer at Worlds, Inc. of the initial system for the Starbright World project."
http://www.mission-base.com/tamiko/starbright/
4. If I understand math and dates correctly Tamiko Thiel states in the first paragraph that he began in November 1994 on the project. That would make Tamiko Thiel's Starbright project begin before the Siggraph Symposium on April 9-12,1995. Meaning that "Original" as required by law has been met and the second requirement "Obviousness" has been met and was presented by Tamiko Thiel first which is another requirement. See USC 35 102 and USC 35 103.
5. Now go to the bottom right of the page,
http://www.mission-base.com/tamiko/starbright/
and you will see the following sentence. "See the Internet Archive for a video of our demo from 1995."
6. Open up the demo by clicking on the word "video".
7. This will take you to a different page. In the center of the page open up the video. It will be a box about 3 inches square and have a red background to begin with and verbiage. The volume is poor so I used headphones and it was crystal clear. Then be patient and within a minute you will see the movie producer Steven Spielberg demoing the exact thing that Worlds Inc. is claiming they created and are being infringed upon by Bungie and other titles. Open this link in Google and make sure you click on the gold star to the far right of the address. When you click on the gold star it will cross out the "https", and allow you to view the video.
https://archive.org/details/vw_starbright-spielberg-video-highlights
8. Steven Spielberg demonstrates by interacting via conversation with multiple people in various geographical locations and they are playing some sort of game in a virtual environment just as the patents claim.
In conclusion, if you desire to argue with fact feel free as I would enjoy the mental stimulation but Steven Spielberg and the Patent Review Boards decision wrapped this up in my mind in a crystal clear beautiful package for Christmas. For the longs out there we may have to wait but I believe we will be rewarded.
Several individuals here have speculated on the remaining shares of Hudson. Perhaps dots can be connected by those individuals. Come to your own conclusion.
http://www.fool.com/quote/nasdaqoth/worlds-inc/wddd/major-holders
Would you post the rebuttal from pacer?
New video and Jesi's words from Gofundme.com yesterday.
http://www.gofundme.com/lm00m0
Paralysis is a state of mind. I said I would so I did. Thank you lord for guiding me and keeping me strong and thank you to everyone for supporting me. My journey is just beginning! 103 feet down today. I went straight to the walker in therapy!
New Video.
https://instagram.com/p/7JGS9hokSq/
I believe in the past you and I have agreed in separate posts that when you look at United States Code and if the Patent AND Trade Office made a clerical error the years the patent holder was denied the benefit of their patent those denied years are added to the back end of the patent.
Worlds has been shorted many years of benefit on the front end of this complaint. ATVI attorney has already stated this will cost them billions. Susman has already stated that they can appeal the few years that Judge Casper allowed and ask for the entire totality of past years.
My question is considering these facts would you adjust your calculations of judgement against ATVI and if so would you share those numbers?
Amazing photo considering Jesi was paralyzed four months ago with her tenacity I expect her to be on a major network within the year
at least standing without assistance if not walking without assistance.
" My pt is just making sure I don't fall backwards by keeping her hand there. But my kneel is strong next I'll be standing tall!"
http://www.gofundme.com/lm00m0
For any skeptic these are the words of Jesi Stracham 10 hours ago.
"I feel that I am on track and where I need to be. The Invivo Scaffold is doing its job! I went from no movement to these hips not lying! =)"
http://www.gofundme.com/lm00m0
Read the US Code 35 254
35 U.S.C. 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.
(Amended Jan. 2, 1975, Public Law 93-596, sec. 1, 88 Stat. 1949; Nov. 29, 1999, Public Law 106-113, sec. 1000(a)(9), 113 Stat. 1501A-582 (S. 1948 sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)).)
As I have pondered whether to continue long or sell I am always reminded that Max Tribble has more to loose than I do, hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and yet he continues pressing forward. I am also reminded that those individuals that manipulate, whether legally or illegally, are nothing more than self serving game players. In the case of Worlds they hold the stock down or make it go up and down like a professional yo-yo master to shake out the weak or instill fear to the less savvy.
Yesterday a man was highlighted on the internet, I believe in Baron's or Business Week, as being an eighth grade drop out that was awarded 533 million from Apple. Now what is interesting to me is the fact that he was not applauded for his intellect in developing the intellectual property, something to do with iTunes, but he was being discredited because of his educational level. Even more interesting were the "educated experts" that admitted during the jury trial that they had no time to read the complaint filed by this uneducated mans legal counsel.
I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I can connect the dots and I laugh at the low artificial price of this stock. I laugh because even Activision's legal counsel in open court on video stated, "That if this motion was allowed to proceed his client (Activision) could loose billions to Worlds." This was recorded under the cameras in the court room program during the summary judgment hearing. The end result was the infringement claim was allowed to proceed and Activision was DENIED. Then Max Tribble within the last few weeks was allowed to submit to the court additional data under a court "sealed" process. Judge Casper did not have to allow the additional data; but in her discernment she must have concluded that there must be something of substance that a jury should consider. This also indicated to me that Judge Casper is paying attention to details and attempting to allow a jury to make the decision under due process.
I am puzzled by the impatient stock holders on this board and other boards that bash Judge Casper for her slow response. She has 55 complaints to consider. She has been bound to uphold the Laws that this great country has established in order that we all receive due process. So I ask myself why would I want her to make a rash ill advised decision? The answer is I would not. I would prefer for her to take a few extra months which in this case allowed Max Tribble to file additional data and make additional claims against additional titles which will not only mean additional dollars of revenue from Activision. It also means billions of dollars of revenue from other companies and for many years after an appeal is filed for the mistake the USPTO made.
My point to all of this is those that manipulate this and other stock whether legal or illegal due so for there benefit. They want fear and confusion to rule the day. Those that can discern the facts from smoke and mirrors would be well advised to consider the miniscule amount that this stock trades at and what the future value will be based upon the words of Activision's legal counsel in 2013. Then consider if his words are factual, (and why would he lie about that?) , How much more will this stock be worth in a few more years when not only Activision makes annual payments but all the other game manufacturers are paying Worlds an annual royalty?
As for revenues Max Tribble has already stated that the ruling by Judge Casper to limit the amount of years that can be claimed under this infringement is appealable. Judge Casper is only allowing the claim against Activision to go back a few years. Also if you read patent law you will discover that if an error by the Patent Office causes a patent holder to loose the benefit under the patent, due to an error made by the Patent office, then; the patent holder is entitled to have the lost years applied to the end of the patent. In this particular case Worlds was denied the benefit by Judge Casper limiting the years despite the fact that the Patent Office has already, in writing, admitted there error.
Please do not forget that Max Tribbles firm spent nine months researching this case before they decided to represent Worlds....on contingency. He has every professional and personal selfish motive to do everything in his power to make this a success. The key to all of this is for counsel to follow the process to the letter and wait.
On another note two weeks ago additional evidence was allowed to be provided to the court under seal. Presumably to prove Worlds coding was used in these games. Now additional titles are being allowed to be added to the infringement claims.
If you can connect the dots my conclusion would be that Judge Casper would not allow these additional items if there was not something of substance contained within that should be considered by a jury.
In the 2013 annual report the statement below in quotations was made. I have to believe and conclude that every last detail has been analyzed and completed to date for an up-listing that is advantageous to the end goal; considering the caliber of the management that has been placed in strategic positions and goals set by the executive staff over the past two years have been decisive and completed in a methodical manner one at a time. So it would make no sense at all to overlook up-listing requirements and their details of completion.
"Launched Warrant Tender Offer with Intent to Up-List Stock to National Securities Exchange. In April 2013, we commenced an
offer to exchange 15 million outstanding warrants issued in 2010 with new warrants. The intent of the warrant exchange offer is to
remove a warrant liability from InVivo’s balance sheet that has been a major impediment to up-listing InVivo’s stock to a National
Securities Exchange such as NASDAQ or NYSE MKT. The new warrants being offered have extended the expiration date by two years
in exchange for removal of an anti-dilution clause that requires us to account for the existing warrants as a liability instead of equity."
The update says 11-19-2014. I am in a different time zone so maybe you have seen what I am just now seeing. My point to the last board was there are a few updates. Not monumental but statements of the goals for the future and a new diagram for the patent category that has 273,000 patents. I just connected the dots and processed what I read with great encouragement for the future.
http://invivotherapeutics.com/pdf/InVivo-Corporate-Presentation-11-19-14-FINAL.pdf
I understand the frustration but have you read the update that was posted today on the Invivo website. I just completed my third read of it in the last hour. I would encourage you, if you have not, to read and digest the nuances. The price fluctuation could be nothing more than a market maker trying to flush out the weak. In time if this comes together as planned you will be rewarded handsomely. In my mind it stands to reason if you look at the key players involved you have a company with a strong pedigree. Do not despair over a few bad days.
If Zack's is correct the surgery was on October 15. which stands to reason since his accident was on October 13. If you go further and read the report posted on this board a few days ago, pay attention to the charts and the BBB scores for each of the four categories. There should be something of substance by day 70 of the post op. if the animal trails can be any measure of how the human anatomy responds. The results.... if you can stomach the tedious nature of the research is very optimistic and eye opening. Jordan should have a great Christmas gift this year.
http://scr.zacks.com/files/November-6-2014_NVIV_Napodano_v001_m8y074.pdf
The report I referenced:
http://invivotherapeutics.com/pdf/Teng_Langer_Polymer_StemCell_2002.pdf
Would that not contradict Judge Casper's written statement allowing for the Markham? She would have stopped wasting her time months ago if she thought nothing existed in this case.
Spacen
You stated cognitive dissonance was alive and well at WDDD. Then you stated an investor might have heard something they did not like causing them to divest of WDDD. Would you care to speculate what someone might have heard that would cause a divestiture?
How large a sale of ATVI at 351?
I emailed Bryan in investor relations about two weeks ago and at that time there was no one enrolled. He went on to explain that the criteria is very specific which I researched and after reading the criteria and fully understanding the medical terms I had to agree.