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.
Never let, just nothing to comment on (part of the problem). Kind of wishing I bought more when they announced the offering.
Well said and I agree. We are due for an update, which will hopefully before YE2016 results being released.
I don't think so. Ruling came out yesterday afternoon well after volume + price were increasing.
IMO financing overhang / cash situation mostly resolved. Investors now need to see how the new portfolios will be monetized.
There is a good chance the whole operation is insolvent based on Marc's court deposition.
Thanks. Hopefully I get to make it down this time. A little nervous the company is insolvent based on Marc's comments in the deposition from the legal case.
Have plans in Texarkana middle of this year. I plan to take a ride to the IFUS property to check things out. Will report back with pictures.
IMO 2017, without audited updated financials through 12/31/2016 its dead money. IMO it should be halted until all of the financials are brought up to date.
Nope. Everyone finds out when the three Judge panel walk into the room to hear the case.
Mayer and Wallace are a plague that needs to be avoided. Nothing is predictable with those two. Kind of early though as a hearing is a ways off.
There are no royalties through 2018, the patents expired.
Technically the patent application is still pending and JS has three months to respond to the office action. There is then an appeal stage. The patent is still pending until its abandoned, which is a ways off.
Judge Newman is the best and is my top choice for any panel.
That is the one I am talking about. It is an application, not an actual granted patent. The PTO status a month ago was - Final Rejection.
FWIW there is no patent. There is an application outstanding with a Final Rejection status. I don't see any patentable subject matter for this product.
I am not sure what the big deal is.
Was I close enough?
Tough to know. They will need to raise the A/S first. Just a guess but another 20m-30m would be about right. Again that is just a guess.
From the time of the appeal. 8-12 months from filing appeal to decision. Why so long? That is normally how long they take. The CAFC has 500 district court appeals pending followed by nearly 600 PTAB appeals pending in their backlog. 4-6 months I am seeing is unrealistic and I would take the over every singe time on that bet.
Stay continued as expected. It will take a good 8-12 months for the appeal process to work itself out.
The company needs cash with only $48K left in the bank. The appeal should easily cost between $250K-500K (no one I know does appeal work on contingency). There are 35M warrants at $.012 that I expect to be exercised with some shares likely to leak into the market. IMO stock will probably hit the $.012 warrant price sometime before the oral hearing. The CEO will also need to either increase the A/S or do a reverse as they are close to hitting the 250M A/S.
We will see. BOL.
"WDDD should also have good arguments on motivation to combine on the obviousness findings."
Precedential opinion out today at the CAFC by Wallach of all people that should help in the eventual appeal. It is in regards to motivation to combine prior art.
Link
We will see and I truly hope that you are right. How this portfolio/case has been handled by the court and the PTO is a sick joke. It makes a mockery of the system and shows how much damage the efficient infringement lobby has done.
Pure speculation on my part sure but here is the following factual timeline:
The case has drug on for four and a half years and they are barely past the Markman phase. She delayed the Markman hearing for months for the Whitey case and then took eight months to publish the Markman opinion. The case was then stayed pending the results of the IPR proceedings.
In my experience, most judges except those in East/North Texas, some in NDCA, a few in NJ, and four or so in Delaware would rather not hear patent cases. This is my biggest gripe when venue reform is brought up. If they are going to distribute the cases evenly across the US instead of the current concentrated system we currently have, they need to figure out a way to find judges who have experience in patent law and actually want to take on the cases.
The case is already stayed though. I don't see Casper who IMO has no interest in this case, unstaying the case until appeals are exhausted in order to conserve court resources.
Just my opinion.
It means Bungie successfully petitioned the PTAB to find the challenged claims in the '501 patent unpatentable over the prior art.
I expect WDDD to appeal the claims that were killed, while Bungie appealing the claims that made it through. Its roughly an eight to 12 month process after the notice of appeal is filed at the PTAB. IMO it is more likely than not the District Court case in Massachusetts is stayed pending the result of the appeal.
BOL!
'501 decision out. All challenged claims killed.
I don't think so. I think VirnetX tried doing something like this and it didn't work out.
IMO it would be a waste of resources which WDDD doesn't have much of. They need to get the last review out and appeal everything to the CAFC and pray they can get the stay lifted in District Court (which I don't think will happen).
Confirmed in the WORX 10K. WDDD owns 9.3% of WORX. Page 50.
Link
I think this is very fair commentary. A+ in my book. Not sure why I am being lumped in as I haven't really put any numbers out. I expect a continued long road and hurdles to ever collect from ATVI.
Fighting the appeal won't be free or cheap. They will likely need another quarter to half a million to finance the appeal. The 3Q 10Q only lists 47K in cash which won't cut it. I would imagine the $.012 warrant holders will exercise, which will help provide some cash.
Nearly every patent case that I follow that is stayed pending IPR is again further stayed pending the result of the IPR appeal to the CAFC. Network1 v ALU et al is a very good recent example. Only was recently reactivated after Network1 won the appeal after they won at the PTAB.
With split decisions in the WDDD IPRs it should increase the likelihood that the case remains stayed at least another 10+ months as the appeals process plays out.
Casper has not had much interest in this case and will want all validity issues being put to rest in order to preserve court resources.
BOL
"Believe me when this gets to trial, maybe within the next 4 months, you will see the equity take on a serious rise as the motions are successfully ruled upon."
I don't think so. I think the more likely scenario is we see a status update within a month or two after the final IPR Final Decision being published. I would then bet the stay is continued pending the results of the eventual appeal decision (IMO both sides are going to appeal).
WDDD still has a long way to go until it ever gets in front of a jury.
IMO dead money until audited financials are brought up to date and filed.
Definitely will be appealed. The avatar construction is lunacy especially with BRI being used two days before the patents expire.....
WDDD should also have good arguments on motivation to combine on the obviousness findings.
Claim 19 not really alive, was killed 18+ months ago. The Markman Opinion back in 2015 found a term in claim 19 of the '998 patent indefinite, ie kills the claim.
Accordingly, the Courts agrees that there is no basis on which a person of ordinary skill
in the art would be able to determine how much of a “perspective view” would need to be
displayed to constitute “all” of that view. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
be equally unable to determine what would constitute “less than all” of a “perspective view.”
The Court concludes by clear and convincing evidence, therefore, that the term “switch between
a rendering in which all of a perspective view of a local user avatar of the local user is displayed
and a rendering in which less than all of the perspective view is displayed” is indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
Pages 36-39 of the opinion.
Scrips filed a lawsuit v Schniederman in Eastern Pennsylvania. I am working on getting a copy of the complaint.
Still no audited financials. Just a suckers game until the filings are brought up to date and audited. GLTA!
Big win:
Link
They won many cases all over the world v ZTE, which concluded in an eight figure settlement. They got hosed at the finish line in the Google case (hard to blame them there). The DirecTv / Lowes cases should have been pretty cheap on legal fees. It looks like most of the expense/legal in Q3 was related to the Xpresspa acquisition.
FH's main business is clearly not patent licensing anymore (and for awhile now). Not sure why this is hard to understand.
It is the only claim in this patent involved in litigation.
No problem. I follow around 500 court dockets and another 800 IPR proceedings. They are all different and I don't find too many apples to apples comparisons.