Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The.appropriately named CEO/CFO mR.Flowers wilted and.bailed.in the nick of time! Right before this garbage gets bounced by the Supreme Court CLERKS and runs out of money which is being funneled off to the blockchain "consultants". Consultants will clean out the remainder of PTSCs funds exploring new "businesses" for the company to get into that it has no history being involved in! At least this junk will go bankrupt soon and cease to exist so that is a positive! In my opinion.
CORRECT! The.Supreme.Court Clerks.will.weed.this.junk.troll.company out! QUICK! No discussion necessary on this one!
Read this! VERY.good.cases NEVER.even.get.discussed!>>>
PTSC is a goner. The Supreme Court discusses VERY FEW cases even at the conference and then grants even less. UR done. The clerks actually weed out most all of the cases before the conference and a patent troll like PTSC is certainly ripe to be weeded out by ambitious young lawyer clerks who ever want a job in big tech!! Sell UR shares now and buy half a cup of joe (small size) whilst U still can. Try'N 2 help u all. IMO
I will be back to say I told ya so! Pretty obvious this company is finished. Jus say'N!
http://www.counselpress.com/page_blog_single.cfm?bid=11
PTSC loses.at.almost.every.court they.set.foot in. Even way back in 2012!
PTSC will.dry.up.and blow away.days from now! Its over peeps! In my opinion.
Soon our little.company.will.do.BIG.things! PATIENCE! my friends. Everybody expects to get rich over night. We gots the pattens! IMO IMO IMO!
Sell dem shares before.they are WORTHLESS!
Sorry folks.U lost.Sad.Better sell ASAP.Its.over in my opinion.
Looks.to.trade down to.2c or.less.Garbage company. Should go sub pennies at some point. In my opinion.
EVEN IF.PTSC.had.a.GREAT.case the Supreme.Court.takes.FEW! Just because the Supreme Court does not take PTSC case in no way means they do not have a fantastic case. I sympathize with all the hopelessly underwater folks here. The court has very limited resources and many cases to review. Best to sell UR shares on the recent hype. When the Supreme Court declines to review this case then all u got is that oppy where PTSC paid a pile of money for a block chain consultant! ROFLMAO! SKETCHY!!!! In my opinion.
It is almost certain.the.Supreme.Court.will not take.the case. Period! 80 cases taken out of 7000! IMO!
Supreme.Court.may.not want to.use a stain.like PTSC to.establish.precedent. They are very picky that way and tend to shy away from illegitimate patent troll companies like PTSC who hurt technological innovation. It has to be the right issue, right litigants and right time. I just dont see it happening. In my opinion.
80.cases.accepted out of.7000.Odds are 1.12% chance PTSC case gets heard...and those are just the raw odds without the judges and their clerks knowing PTSC is a patent troll that unfairly attacks legitimate product producing companies. That makes their chances of getting reviewed far less than 1.12%. In my opinion!
Democrat Supreme.Court judges.would all tank PTSCs case because they like judges making up their own twist of the law with tons of discretion. Basically whatever Democrat politicians or left wing orthodoxy and big tech wants the justices allow to happen for the most part. SO you lose 4 of the 9 right there and 2 of the remaining 5 Republican Justices, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch do not participate in the cert pool so their clerks will simply weed PTSCs case out. So the chances are exceedingly slim the PTSCs case will ever be heard. In my opinion.
As you can see it is a LONG process. The SCblog post said only 80 out of the 7000-8000 get accepted. 2 of the justices do not even see the case at all unless their clerks think it is worth seeing. PTSC will automatically lose those 2 judges if those clerks ever want a job with a big tech company! In my opinion!!!
This explains the process>>> Supreme Court procedure
To help illustrate the terms and concepts you will often encounter in discussions of the Supreme Court, we have followed an imaginary Supreme Court case through the judicial process.
Suppose that the plaintiff (Mr. Lyon) is suing the defendant (his employer, the state-run Animal House Zoo). Mr. Lyon, who is white, scored higher than Mr. Behr, who is black, on an exam that qualifies employees for promotions. When the exam was scored, however, the zoo threw out the results because it worried that promoting a white candidate over a black candidate would leave it vulnerable to allegations that it had violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in employment. Mr. Lyon sued the Animal House Zoo, arguing that by throwing out the results of the exam, the zoo violated under his rights under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (The Supreme Court addressed a case with similar facts in 2009 when it decided Ricci v. DeStefano.)
Here, we’ll look at the life of our hypothetical case, Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, focusing on proceedings in the Supreme Court.
Lower courts
Mr. Lyon is suing his employer, the Animal House Zoo, because he believes that the zoo violated his rights under the Civil Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. He begins his lawsuit by filing it in the federal district court, the trial court responsible for considering federal cases in the area where he lives and works. After hearing arguments and receiving evidence from both Mr. Lyon and the zoo, the district court decides that the zoo did not violate Mr. Lyon’s rights.
Unhappy with the trial court’s decision, Mr. Lyon appeals it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, one of 13 federal appellate courts that review appeals from federal district courts. A panel of three randomly assigned judges reviews the case and affirms the district court’s ruling that the zoo cannot be held liable for its actions, because by throwing out the exam results, it had simply been trying to fulfill its obligation not to discriminate under the Civil Rights Act.
At this point, Mr. Lyon has to choose between petitioning the Supreme Court for review of the 2nd Circuit’s decision or seeking rehearing by the three judges or by all the judges on the 2nd Circuit. Mr. Lyon chooses to ask for rehearing by all the 2nd Circuit judges, known as en banc review, but the court denies his request.
Petition for a writ of certiorari
From the day the 2nd Circuit denies his petition for rehearing en banc, Mr. Lyon has 90 days to file a petition for a writ of certiorari (often called a cert petition), which is a brief asking the Supreme Court to hear his case. (If Mr. Lyon had won in the lower courts, the zoo could have filed a cert petition.) In most circumstances, the Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to grant review of a particular case. Of the 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions filed each term, the court grants certiorari and hears oral argument in only about 80. Granting a cert petition requires the votes of four justices.
Mr. Lyon can request that the time for filing his cert petition be extended for up to 60 days. At least 10 days before the due date (absent extraordinary circumstances), he can file a motion requesting more time. That request would go to the circuit justice, the member of the Supreme Court responsible for the 2nd Circuit, currently Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The justices vary in their willingness to grant extension requests.
In his cert petition, Mr. Lyon sets out the facts, the history of the case and the reasons why the Supreme Court should review the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. He tells the court that it should grant review not only because the 2nd Circuit’s opinion is wrong but also because, by doing so, the court can clarify ambiguities in both the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution. (In addition to focusing directly on the legal questions at issue in the case, cert petitions often point to disagreements among the federal courts of appeals about those issues and ask the Supreme Court to resolve those disputes by setting a precedent that the lower courts must follow.)
Once Mr. Lyon’s cert petition is filed, the zoo has three options: It can acquiesce, which means that it can agree with Lyon that the court should grant certiorari (opt to hear the case); it can waive its right to file a response to the cert petition (although the justices, after reading the petition, could still ask the zoo for its response); or it can file a brief in opposition (BIO). The zoo chooses the third option; once the cert petition is placed on the Supreme Court’s docket, the zoo has 30 days to file its BIO.
That deadline can be extended as well by making a request to the clerk’s office. One request will be granted as a matter of right. Later requests generally require the petitioner’s permission. There is no limit on the number of extensions. Because it agrees with the 2nd Circuit’s decision and wants that ruling to prevail, the zoo argues in its BIO that the court should deny Mr. Lyon’s cert petition and choose not to hear the case.
After the BIO has been filed, Mr. Lyon can file a reply brief, rebutting the points made by the zoo in the BIO and reiterating the arguments made in his cert petition. Unlike the cert petition and the BIO, which must be filed with the court under strict deadlines, the exact timing of the reply brief varies. A general rule of thumb, though, is that a reply brief should be filed approximately 10 days after filing of the BIO.
Before the court decides whether to hear Mr. Lyon’s petition, outside groups with an interest in the outcome of the case can file briefs telling the court why it should grant certiorari. These groups are known as amici curiae, which is Latin for “friends of the court”; the briefs they file are called amicus briefs. At the certiorari stage, when the court is deciding whether to hear a case, amicus briefs are normally only filed by those who agree with the petitioner that the court should review the case.
Once all of the cert stage briefs — the cert petition, the BIO (if any), the reply brief (if any) and the amicus briefs (if any) — are filed, they are distributed to the justices’ chambers. Seven of the current justices participate in the cert pool, which is a labor-saving device in which a cert petition is first reviewed by one law clerk in one of the seven chambers. That clerk prepares a memorandum about the case that includes an initial recommendation as to whether the court should review the case; the memorandum is circulated to all seven chambers, where it is reviewed by the clerks and possibly the justices there. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch do not participate in the cert pool. Instead, their law clerks review the incoming cert petitions on their own and make recommendations directly to their respective justices.
Based on these reviews, the justices decide to add Lyon v. Animal House Zoo to the discuss list, a short list of cases they plan to talk about at their next private meeting, or conference. (If no justice had asked to add Lyon to the discuss list, it would have been put on the “dead list,” and certiorari would automatically have been denied without the justices having ever discussed the case or voted on it.) At least four justices vote to grant review in Lyon, and the court announces this decision as part of an order list, which will generally be released on the Monday morning after the conference.
Merits stage
Once the court has accepted the case, the parties are required to file a new set of briefs. Unlike the cert stage briefs, which focused on whether the court should review the case, the briefs on the merits allow each party to explain why he or she should win the case. Once certiorari is granted, the petitioner generally has 45 days to file his opening brief. (This time frame is typical, but can vary in particularly time-sensitive cases; when the court was considering the dispute between presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore, for example, it instructed the parties to file their merits briefs over the course of a single weekend. Also, depending on the court’s schedule, the parties to a merits case may be able to agree on a briefing arrangement that provides them with more time that the rules specify.) Mr. Lyon has a maximum of 50 pages in which to make his argument, and he uses that space to explain to the court why he thinks the Animal House Zoo violated his rights when it threw out the results of the promotional exam.
Even though the Supreme Court will be able to review the entire record in the case, Mr. Lyon and the zoo agree that it will be helpful for the justices to have ready access to the exam results, so they decide to file a joint appendix including this material. (If Mr. Lyon and the zoo had agreed that no joint appendix was needed, they could have filed a motion asking the court for permission not to prepare one.) Whoever loses the case will be required to pay for the printing of the joint appendix, so both Mr. Lyon and the zoo have an interest in keeping it as short as possible. The joint appendix is filed at the same time as Mr. Lyon’s merits brief.
A group not involved in Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, the United Coalition of Zoo Workers, learns about the case and decides that a Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Lyon’s favor will benefit its own mission. Therefore, the group files an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to accept Mr. Lyon’s arguments; furthermore, it brings up some points that Mr. Lyon didn’t address in his brief, and that it thinks will be helpful in persuading the justices to rule in his favor. Because it supports the position of the petitioner, the coalition’s amicus brief is due one week after Mr. Lyon’s merits brief is filed. A would-be amicus must normally ask both sides for permission to file, but the court will almost always allow the filing of a timely amicus brief even if one side or another refuses to consent.
Thirty-five days after Mr. Lyon files his merits brief (absent an extension), the zoo’s brief, known as the respondent’s brief, is due. It is subject to the same 50-page limit as Mr. Lyon’s opening brief; the zoo uses the space to argue that, when it threw out the test results, it was only trying to avoid discriminating against any of its employees. The zoo argues that the 2nd Circuit’s interpretation of the case was correct, and it urges the Supreme Court to affirm, or leave in place, that ruling.
The U.S. government learns about Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, and it worries that a Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Lyon’s favor would restrict its own ability to promote its employees as it sees fit. Therefore, the government decides to file an amicus brief in support of the zoo. The U.S. solicitor general, who acts as the government’s lawyer in Supreme Court cases, files the amicus brief; her brief is due one week after the zoo’s brief is filed. The United States is one of a limited number of parties that do not have to ask for permission to file an amicus brief. The solicitor general also files a motion for divided argument, asking the Supreme Court to allot some time for her to speak as an amicus when the case is argued.
Once Mr. Lyon has filed his merits brief and the zoo has responded, Mr. Lyon has an opportunity to file a reply brief, which is due approximately 30 days after the respondent’s brief on the merits (but at least seven days before the case is argued). He uses this brief to rebut the arguments made in the respondent’s brief and the United States’ amicus brief and to reiterate the points he made in his original merits brief.
Oral argument
The Supreme Court normally hears oral arguments between October and April, scheduling them into monthly two-week sittings during which the court hears two (although sometimes one or three) arguments per day on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Generally, the court allots one hour of argument time for each case, with each party speaking for 30 minutes.
Although amici often ask the court to grant divided argument — to let them use part of a party’s allotted half-hour to make their own points — these requests are rarely granted when they come from private groups. However, in Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, the court grants (as it often does) the solicitor general’s request for divided argument. Because the solicitor general will be arguing for the United States in support of the respondent, she (or another lawyer from her office) will be using 10 minutes of the half hour allotted to the zoo.
During the oral argument, the justices have the opportunity to ask the attorneys to clarify or elaborate on any questions that have arisen from the briefs. Frequently, much of the oral argument is devoted to answering these questions. Because Mr. Lyon is the petitioner, his attorney argues first. Mr. Lyon’s attorney speaks for 25 of the 30 minutes allotted to him, choosing to reserve the last five minutes for rebuttal. As soon as he finishes speaking, the attorney for the zoo has 20 minutes to respond. Following the zoo’s attorney, an attorney from the office of the solicitor general argues for 10 minutes on behalf of the United States, and then Mr. Lyon’s attorney uses his five remaining minutes to deliver a rebuttal.
Decision
Later that week, the justices hold a private conference during which they vote on how to decide the case. The senior justice in the majority (that is, either the Chief Justice or, if he is not in the majority, the justice who has been on the court the longest) decides who will write the majority opinion; if there is a dissent — a view held by a minority of justices that a different decision should have been reached — then the senior dissenting justice assigns one of the dissenting justices to write the dissenting opinion. If a justice agrees with the outcome of a case but not the reasoning behind it, he or she may write a concurring opinion, in which other justices may join. Justices may also write separate dissents. In the event of a tie vote — for example, if there is a vacancy on the court or if one of the justices has recused himself or herself from the case — the decision of the lower court remains undisturbed.
The assigned justices then draft and circulate opinions outlining their reasoning in reaching their decision. The time it takes to finalize an opinion depends on several factors, including how divided the justices are, which justice is writing the opinion, and the court’s schedule. Typically, all cases are decided by the time the court recesses for the summer at the end of June or the beginning of July.
The court announces its decision in Lyon v. Animal House Zoo in open court. Here, the court hands down, or issues, an opinion in which it reverses the 2nd Circuit’s decision, explaining its reasons for ruling that the 2nd Circuit was wrong to decide the case in the zoo’s favor and that it should have ruled in favor of Mr. Lyon instead. (Alternatively, the court could have affirmed the case, ruling that the 2nd Circuit was right and that the zoo should not be held liable, or it could have vacated the 2nd Circuit’s ruling, effectively canceling it, and remanded the case, directing the 2nd Circuit to re-examine it based on theories, evidence or reasoning it had not yet considered.)
https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/supreme-court-procedure/
How does the Supreme Court decide to hear a case? The Supreme Court decides to hear a case based on at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court agreeing to grant the Petition for Certiorari. If four Justices agree to grant the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case.
from google
PTSC has filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court but I am not sure when you would find out if they granted their petition for certiorari which would mean the case would be heard. The court term is beginning and the other side still has to respond to PTSC petition I think they have until Oct 7 or so. Maybe even if it is granted to be heard it wont be actually heard until the next Supreme court calendar beginning in October of 2020. In my opinion.
Anybody can hire Ken Starr and the Lanier law firm as long as you have the cash! So really that means nothing. Also, PTSC has not hyped anything in years probably because of the fear of being sued for pumping the stock price. I watch this because if they do take the case then look out! The Supreme Court takes these cases when they want to make legal precedent that ties the hands of lower courts. That precedent may actually not end up being favorable to PTSC but it likely would. So its worth watching.
In my opinion.
NO WAY.they.will give.this patent.troll any daylight heres why>>> The Supreme Court justices CLERKS (if they ever want to get a job with a big tech company) will simply weed this junk company out because a patent troll stain like PTSC is not even the proper respectable case to be used to establish a legal precedent in a Supreme Court ruling. SO even if the court felt PTSCs argument was strong, the best in the world, and there was a need to establish new precedent in patent law AT THIS TIME they would not pick this particular case to establish that precedent. On the other hand if they do take up the case buy tons of shares because the share price would go way way up. In my opinion.
The Supreme.Court.hears 100.out of 7000 cases appealed!
Mr Falk and Robert Putnum.come back.get.the.share price.mov'N!!!! They worked magic in the past. They can lure in new investors. Make us rich! IMO IMO IMO!
Anybody.know.where I can get EDIG.shares on.the dark web? Gonna B YUGE! imo imo. Where it tteddy (pattens) or LGJ? We need those folks back. IMO IMO
Can NUNCHI.do everything? YES!!! BUY EDIG!! Its a gold mine my friends. Read the gosh darn PRs! We gonna B rich!!! PATTENS!! (tteddy). I think shares are available on the dark web for purchase. In my opinion.
Post.POSITIVE.messages! We.need 2 lure in new investors! That way we can make some $$$! TIA!
Soon our time will come! PATIENCE!! my friends. PATTENS!!!
SC.clerks.eager to please.the.tech.companies will.weed.out trolls like PTSC the justices will never hear about the company. They do this to secure themselves an employment option...and because they feel trolls like PTSC hurt tech development. That is what these clerks believe it is the progressive democrat thought that dominates these decisions. In my opinion.
They also have no chance really.
100 to 7000 odds for winning:1.4085%
Losing = (0.9859) or 98.5915%
"Odds for" winning: 1:70
"Odds against" winning: 70:1
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/games/odds.php
The odds are very very slim but if it does get heard then buy with both hands!
100 out of 7000+ Supreme.Court appeals.are.heard. NO CHANCE.for.PTSC my friends. Even if the argument seems sound, which all lawyers arguments do, the Supreme Court carefully picks its cases based on the characters of the people bringing the case and the importance of the issue at this time. Lots of actually very good cases never get heard. The Supreme Court, even if it believes in PTSCs argument, is certainly not going to endorse a worthless patent troll that harms the collective advance of technology by trying to extort the winners like Apple, Samsung and others who actually make useful products. Sell this junk my friends. You should put UR energy into investing in all the scam pot, cbd, blockchain and miners out there! At least they have potential! In my opinion.
$1.2 loss per Q and 3.4 left and they are OUT! Good luck raising money at even the 1-2c range! 1 BILLION shares outstanding soon in my opinion to keep this junk bus afloat until the 2 years (plus in my opinion) when they will actually have product to sell. Better to sell now my fiends. Most peeps into the scam stocks invest in the pot crypto or miners. You should do likewise. There is money to be made there.
Rochester.study.results.were.just made public August 19! Wow wait til this gets widely known. Even if the company is telling the truth that the study was a success the study itself as published on a US govt website says it completely failed to achieve its hoped for results. This should kill the stock completely. Hard not to see it going into the sub pennies. In my opinion.
Imagin tech.did.not work in the Univ.of Rochester study!!! So says the results (my bolding) https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT03058705?term=Imagin&rank=4
Title Minimal Dwell Time
Hide Description The minimum time needed to observe the tumors during transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT).
Time Frame Day 1
Hide Outcome Measure Data
Hide Analysis Population Description
Dwell time was not collected on any participant due to failure to visual fluorescence in the subjects.
Provided this is the same University of Rochester study that the company was saying in a PR:
July 17, 2018 16:30 ET | Source: Imagin Medical Inc.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia and BOSTON, July 17, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Imagin Medical (CSE:IME) (OTCQB:IMEXF) (Frankfurt:DPD2) (Stuttgart:DPD2) (“Imagin” or the “Company”) announced today favorable results in the 10-subject investigator-sponsored research study being conducted at the University of Rochester Medical Center using the i/Blue Imaging System (the “URMC Research Study”), an important step in the development of a commercially-viable product.
In the URMC Research Study, fluorescence was successfully demonstrated in 15 minutes, confirming that the i/Blue Imaging System will potentially allow physicians to “see” bladder cancer significantly faster than the full hour or more required by currently available imaging technology
SO the study results say Imagin tech failed completely and the company says it succeeded. Big difference. Sum ting wong! In my opinion.
EDIG will RISE! Like the phoenix! https://twitter.com/Nunally I am confident the good folks at EDIG have a plan they always do! We good. pattens! In my humble opinion.
The Supreme Court WILL.NEVER.HEAR.THIS.CASE! Count on it! The hear like 100 cases out of over 7000 asked. This patent troll is done! In my opinion.
.0328C! Headed to??? Sub pennies soon in my opinion. Best sell now whilst U can still buy a (small) cup a joe.
3c-2c-1c DONE! Garbage! Soon gone in my opinion!
Stock is dead. total garbage in my opinion. Sell while it is still worth anything! In my opinion.
JUST 1 PR=$$$$$ off 2 the races! EDIG always has a plan. The good folks there R working hard imo on NUNCHI, MICROSIGNET and PLUTO!!! We got the pattens. Nothing can stop us now. Little Timmys knees are a knocking. IMO