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.
Yesterday was definitely an interesting trading day. Nice to see the clear buy side interest.
The more I research the company and people involved, the more I become increasingly impressed.
While a recent article highlighted Mr. Steve Gorlin's involvement and made reference to all of his past successful accomplishments, and they clearly speak for themselves, he appears to be merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg so to speak. This team has some real depth.
I wonder how many have failed to yet recognize Dr. James Andrews involvement. I believe this is the only public company board he has ever served on.
stock king,
Appreciate all of your thoughts and taking the time to express them.
I will tell you that while I'm not a fan of a RS as a practical matter, I believe the end justifies the means in this case. If done solely for the purpose of gaining a listing on Nasdaq, then the end result in a very positive one for a myriad of reasons.
In today's world, most brokers and fund managers simply can't buy a stock unless it is listed. By not being listed, you unfortunately alienate yourself from virtually 90% of the entire investment community.
This company's fundamentals speak for themselves, the company is actually profitable and demonstrated impressive top line growth for almost 12 consecutive quarters if I recall correctly. The fact that it currently trading at a sub 2X sales multiple really speaks to the value a listing could bring. Virtually no companies that are profitable and growing like this one trade at such a disparate valuation compared to peers.
You have to bear in mind, Meller is the largest shareholder. Therefore, anything he does to all of us, he does to himself to a much greater extent. To do anything that would undermine value creation on the heals of the shares recently hitting highs and just now finally starting to gather a larger investor audience, would defy both reason and his own best interest.
While I too would like to see the RS done at a slightly higher, say 30 plus price, it is neither here nor there in terms of the ultimate big picture in my mind.
The company is evolving from a fundamentals standpoint. The sooner they can better and more appropriately position themselves on an exchange that will allow for that value to be unlocked for shareholders, the better off we all will be.
Thanks again.
I don't think the article had anything to do with it. It came down into the 7.40 range on very low volume where it appears some sizeable value buyers were anxiously waiting.
The last few days prior in the market were very poor and dominated by selling in most names. Marathon pulled back off of all time highs in concert with the market, as to be expected.
As was again proven today, opportunities to accumulate size in the shares of Marathon are often short lived. Volume on the upside dwarfed volume to the downside.
We now again find ourselves just one point shy of all time highs in the mid 9's. Don't blink.
The gold business was very much real. It simply turned out to be un-economic when they got off vein resulting in a failed business. Anyone who actually physically visited the mine and mill would tell you the exact same.
I understand where you're coming from, but let's see if we hear or see anything on the manual this month. If real, there is opportunity. If it fails to materialize, then I would have to agree with your assertions. The stock didn't get here by some living up to expectations as we all know.
Stock continues to see increased demand slowly but surely. It takes time to build an audience, but this company has come a long ways in a short time over the last 6 month. It's actually now beginning to trade like a real stock.
I expect 2015 to be a good year for both the company and shareholders.
Quote:
Acacia CEO "When patents survive IPRs they're going to command a far higher royalty rate than patents that are never subjected to IPRs. And so we think we're going to have plenty of patents that will survive IPRs and we're looking forward to putting those into play. We think that affect is going to offset the increase in cost and risk.” Essentially, with higher-quality patents your chances of getting through an IPR are much higher and if you do come out the other end you have something that is very valuable."
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/marathon-patent-group-announces-uspto-ruling-granting-joint-motion-terminate-brainlab-nasdaq-mara-1973678.htm
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/marathon-patent-group-announces-that-uspto-has-denied-arm-inc-petition-inter-partes-nasdaq-mara-1944754.htm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/correction-marathon-patent-group-acquires-150327828.html
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/apple-inc-v-rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-and-dynamic-advances-llc-denying-second
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/605634/ptab-won-t-review-orthophoenix-bone-tool-patents
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/marathon-patent-group-announces-that-uspto-has-denied-texas-instruments-inc-petition-nasdaq-mara-1980631.htm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is now the 5th or 6th time a Marathon patent has survived IPR in recent months?
Really would appear to speak to the quality of Marathon's assets.
Also look at the names of some of the companies and effort they've gone through to no avail. Facebook DENIED / Apple...DENIED / Texas Instruments DENIED amongst others.
Remember what Acacia's CEO stated, "When patents survive IPRs they're going to command a far higher royalty rate than patents that are never subjected to IPRs. And so we think we're going to have plenty of patents that will survive IPRs and we're looking forward to putting those into play. We think that affect is going to offset the increase in cost and risk.” Essentially, with higher-quality patents your chances of getting through an IPR are much higher and if you do come out the other end you have something that is very valuable."
IPHawk ?@TheIpHawk ·32 minutes ago
$MARA has another IPR not instituted, this time in the Vantage Point portfolio.
We should hear something on the manual and other potential progress very soon if the CEO's words on the conference call a couple weeks ago was accurate. We'll see soon enough.
Shotmaker...I completely agree. Ironically, Hollis himself essentially said the same on the recent conference call. He too stated something to the effect, revenues are all that matters.
The good thing is that if he can demonstrate any success whatsoever, it could really move the needle considering expectations are so muted and the stock price has essentially priced in no real material value.
If there was ever an opportunity where expectations could easily be exceeded, it would appear to be now.
Not for the faint of heart and highly speculative, but let's see what January brings. Just prove that the manual exists and give us the ability to see something tangible and the stock could quickly move higher. Nobody doubts the opportunity, but we all question the company's ability to execute. Show us something, anything, it would go a long way.
Always appreciate your comments.
While I think we all expected a well needed constructive retracement from recent all time highs, I have a theory that recent pressure may be coming predominantly from a single large seller.
There was at least one fund that I noticed in a filings that participated in a previous financing. The position had obviously done incredibly well for them in short order.
Since most of the other participants in previous financings were primarily insiders and 13G filers, the selling of what appears to be a few hundred thousand shares can only be coming from one of very few shareholders.
If I'm correct and it is them, I figure they are about out of 3/4 of what they had to sell by now. Therefore, the pressure from their selling should abate near term where the shares could see a very quick snap back absent their pressure.
The timing is unfortunate because liquidity is lacking right now due to the time of the year and a highly limited audience. Their selling is clearly imparting more pressure and creating more volatility than it would have if they had been a little more patient.
Like every other time we've discussed this same type of short term supply/demand anomaly in the shares over the last 2 years, I would again presume this an opportunity worth considering taking advantage of.
I've said it before and will say it again, opportunities to buy shares of this company on weakness have been few and far between. More often than not, such opportunities have been not only short lived, but they have repeatedly been proven to have been extremely opportunistic. I expect this pullback to follow in similar footsteps to those that have preceded it.
Ultimately, investors will come and go, but I expect management will continue to execute and drive value. Despite the nice share performance to date, I personally believe that management is literally just now starting to hit their stride.
Looking at the company's calendar of both Markman's and trials for 2015, it is self evident that the number of potential catalysts for both the company and shareholders in 2015, absolutely dwarfs that of 2014.
Nice article noobie107.
Thank you for linking it here.
Interesting point...the stock did go up substantially absent really tangible progress. Merely on the notion they intended to do something.
Makes you wonder what it could do if they really finally do have an actual product that can be monetized?
Mick,
I completely understand your perspective. I can only speak for myself and tell you that there were numerous times that some things did actually occur that were discussed. Perhaps not related to the new business direction, but absolutely pertaining to the gold operations. Again, it was all very real.
It's neither here nor there, I'm not enthused at having lost a fortune here either. That said, we'll see what January brings.
Wouldn't it be nice to be pleasantly surprised for a change. It goes without saying that with the bar being set so incredibly low at this point and expectations so muted, any tangible progress could go a long way towards rebuilding some lost credibility. That alone could drive the shares considerably higher from current levels imo.
No offense taken whatsoever moneybags. I share some of your thoughts.
As you point out, January will be very telling. I know you want him to get it right finally, but are rightfully guarded because of the past, just as you should be. He has to earn back some trust and it won't be easy, he essentially admitted it for the most part on the call. Said all that matters is revenue generation and he is correct. Words don't count, just show us tangible proof that you're doing what you said you would.
With the current stock price being where it is, I think it self evident that expectations are low to non almost existent. If there was ever a time where he had the perfect opportunity to win back some credibility, it would definitely be now. If he even has a slightly viable business and a product, you're right, the emerging market opportunity could raise a lot of boats equally. A little goodwill sure would go a long way from current price levels.
January should be interesting...Thanks as always for your thoughts.
Respect your right to have an opinion, but don't agree with your conclusion in the least. A bad business and failed execution is distinctly different from a scam. The gold operations, mine, mill etc. were all very real.
Let's simply see if what we were told last week on the call comes to fruition or not. We should literally know in a week or so. The debate will end itself soon enough I would imagine.
From this price, any hint of hope whatsoever and having a real product to market, could dramatically move the needle in terms of restoring some shareholder value. I don't think anyone disputes the market potential for the new business direction. Question is whether they can actually execute and the past could only cause most to question that ability.
That said, Hollis himself said on the call that all that matters is generating revenue with the new business model and frankly I agree. For him to have held that call just a week or two ago, said what he said, and not deliver something in January would be like putting the final nail in your own coffin. It's for that reason I think we could be surprised but like I said, we'll know soon enough.
Moneybags,
I'm pretty certain Hollis has nothing to do with the physical authoring of the CBD manual himself. One could only presume any such manual authored by a properly accredited and respected medical professional.
We'll know soon enough if what was said on the call a week back or so was accurate. Bar is set so low that any real progress could materially enhance shareholder value from these levels.
Talks cheap at this point, Hollis himself basically said the exact same, so I will be watching closely in the new year to see if they really finally have a tangible product capable of being monetized.
January 15th, TLI Communications has a Markman hearing and Vantage Point has one on January 29th.
noobie107,
Glad to see this forum now established. It's ironic timing because just yesterday I had the pleasure of speaking with Jarrett Gorlin, the company's CEO.
I have to tell you, he really appears to be a quality person. I am a big believer in the importance of management to the success of any small company, hence my personally reaching out to him.
While we didn't go into the business in depth and he could obviously only say certain publicly available things, I was more looking for some insight into his character and to learn what motivates him and I think I found that.
While it may still be a little early and the company has much work to do, I feel very confident based on my discussion with Mr. Gorlin that he and his team are incredibly capable, have a carefully laid out plan, and fully intend to work diligently to execute it on behalf of shareholders.
Look forward to discussing this company with you and others in the future. I believe it represents a very nice possible early stage investment opportunity run by proven winners whose track record of success really speak for itself.
Thanks again and happy holidays!
Glad to hear it is in process and that you received yours yanquitrader. Thanks for the update.
mick,
There's is absolutely no doubt some things that were expected did not occur. Let's face it, the stock didn't get where it is because of management's flawless execution and meeting investor expectations.
That said, having been around since the company's infancy, I can tell you that a lot of what was announced and communicated with regard to the gold mine and mill was very accurate. As noted previously, I had no less than 5 different friends physically visit both, seeing with their very own eyes and taking many pictures. Trust me, there was no direct flight there either.
They went in the mine, the mill which was separate, and spoke to the miners working there. Put their hands on some of the very equipment the company had procured and announced in releases. I still have the pictures memorizing it all.
As pointed out previously, all the exploratory work was being done on a small miners permit. Whether they could have gotten a full mining permit is up for debate, Oregon is not a mining friendly area. The issue was moot once they got off vein and couldn't find it or additional mineralized zones. Again, Hollis had the right idea, but picked the wrong horse in that mine. Problem was that once he chose that horse, he couldn't change due to the already considerable capital investment.
Personally, I think the original owner of the mine very likely significantly misrepresented the actual economic viability of the project and development to date. They found gold at one point, but couldn't stay on vein. You can crush all the rock you want, but if it has no gold, you have a very unprofitable and capital intensive mining business that will inevitably soon fail.
I think the single biggest mistake Hollis ever made was his choice in the property and his partner who owned it. Had he spent the company's resources on a better and more economically viable project, things could possibly have been different.
Yes Hollis has undoubtedly made mistakes, he admitted to many on the call. I was pleased to hear him taking responsibility.
My point with this diatribe was only to dismiss any myth or insinuation that this company did not have a very real and deeply invested in gold mine and mill at one point. Much of what was once announced was real and accurate, but unfortunately did not lead to value creation.
As to the lack of materialization on some of the previously forecasted developments pertaining to the new direction, what I heard on the call was that the company's financial state had made some of those initiatives prohibitive. Without adequate resources, I can imagine it very hard to do some of those things.
That said, it appears as though they have invested the little bit of resources they had into the manual which is now complete. Perhaps for the first time in some time, they actually have a very real product to sell. We know there is a market for it, but we need to see the quality of the product to better assess. Hopefully we see it come the new year.
As stated earlier, the stock is where it is for a reason, but I do I think there's one thing all can agree on, Hollis is no quitter. Will it ever be anything but a penny stock? NO. However it could be a penny stock with a much higher price if they execute.
He kept this company alive far longer than most while almost any other person would have long walked away and started anew. He could have cleaned the slate and not had to answer to any of us. Instead, he has given us a chance to restore some of our value, and that's worth something.
Let's see what January brings. Happy holidays my friend.
moneybags,
Respect your right to have an opinion and the track record of the stock over time most certainly speaks for itself.
That said, the manual exists and my understanding is that it is extremely well composed. Of course I'd like to verify this myself and I'm sure in the near future we will get to see something tangible that we can properly assess.
I'm sure we both agree there a large market opportunity for such an offering. Will Dutch's meet that need and lead to revenue generation as some of us hope? Only time will tell...
As noted before, the bar is set pretty low so it's possible any measurable progress could quickly be reflected positively in the share price.
Happy Holidays.
Really pleased with the recent performance of this one patentminer.
It's pretty clear that slowly but surely, a nice little audience is starting to develop. I think Tom Shaunessy's coverage really helped as it was incredibly well done to say the least.
Company really is a nice GARP play. At some point I expect they get to a little larger scale and are possibly just scooped up by a larger player. I must assume that management's long term exit strategy.
Bottom line here, management has executed. It's nice to see some are now paying attention and causing the shares to trade a little more on par with multiples held by others in the space.
I could make the case we are still roughly 50-75% undervalued currently, but at least we are no longer at a far too inexpensive just 1X sales as before. Management and the shares have more work to do, but the progress is most certainly notable and deserving.
I think we are all anxiously awaiting the opportunity to see your report. If it's like everything else you've done, it should be really impressive and insightful.
That's just it maddawg, it is a flyer if it ever was one. It will never be a GE or a HD. It is a penny stock and nobody should risk more than they can afford to lose.
That said, you are risking a known and limited amount of just .0002. The upside, if he executes and actually drives some revenues, is considerably higher. I previously suggested with real revenues, I see no reason the shares couldn't trade at half to a penny over time. Again, he must execute period, nothing less. The other side of the coin is that expectations are so low that any progress could really move the needle on perception and share value.
He held the call, was very candid about the past yet sounded somewhat optimistic about the future. Believe him or not, he still appears to have some fight in in while most would have tossed in the towel a long time ago. At this point, the only way he personally reaps any gains is if he can generate real revenues and restores some value to shareholders. At a minimum, our goals and his appear pretty aligned.
Some times tenacity can overcome a lot of adversities. We'll see...
Crusher,
I always appreciate your thoughts and passion. May I assume you are saying that you did in fact listen to the call?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I heard was Hollis actually speaking very candidly regarding some of the very past issues you reference.
He himself stated why many past issues had failed to be realized and how the only thing that matters now is an ability to generate revenues, much like you're saying.
I'm sure you heard that the manual is complete. Hopefully we will all get to view it at some point near term where we can properly access it. At that point, perhaps we revisit the discussion and give our respective thoughts.
Fact is this stock has been an abomination by all accounts and contrary to any insistence, Hollis himself has too lost considerable money on the venture, likely never profiting from any of it.
We previously discussed the gold mine in Oregon and how I had numerous friends personally visit it. It was all very real despite some others insistence at times. A bad capital intensive commoditized business is very different from an outright fraud. I can share with you the pictures if you ever want to see them. Mine, mill, equipment, the whole kit and caboodle!
I continue to see but one reason for the taking the path he has versus just cleaning the slate and starting fresh.
You can certainly say a lot of things about Hollis, but quitter and not willing to face the music, like on last weeks call wouldn't be two of them.
Frankly, I would have loved to hear you have asked any one of your perfectly fair questions on the call where he could have given a response. His willingness to provide you with a forum to do so, yet your apparent reluctance to use it, strikes me as a little hypocritical. That call gave you a free shot while he stood in the wide open, yet you weren't willing to take it. I would have expected anyone with such conviction to have open fired.
While I'm sure this post too will be removed as it promotes rational thought and discourse, surely you will read it before removing it.
Happy holidays to you and yours. :)
Totally appreciate where you're coming from. As I said before, I lost considerably more than most here I'm willing to bet so I can really understand and appreciate your position.
I think one thing we can all agree on is that the bar is set pretty low at this point so any real execution could move the needle in a major way.
I just keep going back to a single thing and that's why? It would have been so much easier to just walk away from all of us old shareholders and start fresh. I can determine only one reason for not taking the easy way out and that's because he can only be trying to do the right thing for legacy shareholders. I see no other explanation.
While yes it's more than fair to call his words into question due to the past, his current actions appear telling to me. Frankly, if I were him, I'd cleaned the slate and written every last one of us off, it would have made his life far easier. Why has he chosen the path of shareholder preservation while most would have done precisely the opposite?
Thanks again dadx4, happy holidays to you and your family.
Thanks dadx4.
I'd really appreciate your assessment if you don't mind. As noted, I had low expectations, but have to admit I was pretty taken aback by the candidness and transparency he provided. Never seen a CEO of any penny stock be that way frankly.
While I thought it would be merely more of the same, I felt it quite different from the past. Doesn't mean I'm right and wouldn't bet more than anyone could afford to lose, but he did earn a stripe with me that day.
Nonetheless, I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Dadx4,
Thanks for the article. By any chance were you on last weeks call?
Actually I believe you can buy up to the ex dividend date or payable date which is Monday (close I presume)and you would still receive the dividend. Or you could wait till Tuesday and buy post split where the shares will be half to account for its issuance.
Price should in theory trade to 50% of Monday's close on Tuesday am to account for the dividend issuance, really just a 2 for 1 forward split.
He couldn't have been any clearer on the matter maddawg. I also thought his candidness on the company's lack of financing being problematic very transparent. I think he addressed the issues head on and pulled no punches. He sat front and center for any and all to take a shot at.
As much as I want to be critical and have lost more than most here, I am hanging in there because while Hollis has made some mistakes and inadvertently over-promised at times, the guy is simply the most tenacious CEO I've ever run across. Think about it for a second, how has he even managed to keep this company afloat this long? Most would have certainly failed the task and written all of us off a long time ago.
Frankly, I would have started the new company under a new shell and said see ya later to all of us older shareholders. He could have wiped the slate clean and started all over with no legacy issues whatsoever to contend with, but he chose the exact opposite. This was his own choice and to me, it's a telling one.
He decided to take the hard road of trying to restore some value and giving existing shareholders something, rather than nothing. To me, that means something.
I listened to that call carefully and I can't help but feel, and I could certainly be wrong, that he may finally be onto something of real merit and that importantly is less capital intensive like gold mining. I see real potential for a manual as described in the marketplace if properly marketed.
If we assume the manual done, we might just watch out because Hollis has no lack of salesmanship, he's just been without anything to really sell.
He talked on the call at length about the importance of generating real revenue and how that is what drives real value. He's 100% correct. There's clearly no lack of understanding of what he needs to do, he just now needs to do it.
Time will tell if he finally gets it right and is successful or not. At this point, we're only risking .0002 to find out. If conviction and diligence mean anything, I wouldn't count old Hollis out quite yet.
Hispeed,
PTAB to Apple: No Third or Fourth Bite at the Apple
By Gregory S. Cordrey Permalink Email This Post
In: Discovery, Inter Partes Review
September 16, 2014
|
More Sharing Services
Share
In inter partes proceeding Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute et al., IPR2014-00320, Petitioner Apple sought a second request for rehearing, before an expanded panel of the PTAB, on the Board's decision not to institute an inter partes review of RPI's U.S. Patent No. 7,177,798 ("the '778 Patent"). The Board held that Apple's request was unauthorized and therefore ordered it expunged from the record of the proceeding.
On January 3, 2014, Apple initially filed its IPR petition seeking invalidity of the '798 Patent based three pieces of prior art that Apple alleged anticipated and/or rendered obvious certain claims of the '798 Patent. On April 17, 2014, RPI filed its preliminary response asserting that the Board should deny the petition just as it denied Apple's first petition for inter partes review of the '798 Patent. In its preliminary response, RPI asserted that the Board already considered (and rejected) the same grounds and prior art that Apple now relies on in the second petition. Accordingly, RPI argued that the second petition should be denied because "[t]he Board denied the first petition [which included the same prior art asserted in the second petition] as to all challenged claims because Apple failed to establish that it would prevail in showing that even a single claim of the '798 Patent is unpatentable."
RPI also argued that Apple was time barred under § 315(b) because the "Petition was filed more than one year after Apple was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '798 Patent." Specifically, RPI refuted Apple's claim that the first lawsuit was a nullity because it was dismissed without prejudice and therefore did not start the one-year clock running under § 315(b):
Apple was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '798 Patent on October 23, 2012 ("Dynamic I," filed October 19, 2012). Dynamic I was dismissed under the "consolidation" provision of Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure through a court-ordered coordination of two related cases: Dynamic I, filed by Dynamic Advances LLC, the exclusive licensee of the '798 Patent, and Dynamic ll, jointly filed by Dynamic Advances and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ("RPI"). Through the Rule 42 order, the entirety of Dynamic I's nine months of litigation--and the parties' postures in that litigation--was incorporated into Dynamic II. Because of this court-ordered incorporation, the parties in Dynamic II are encumbered by the proceedings of Dynamic I--they did not resume their pre-Dynamic I positions when Dynamic I was dismissed. And Apple cannot establish the grounds for avoiding the one-year statutory bar through its joinder motion because there is no IPR proceeding for Apple to join.
In its decision declining to institute Apple's first IPR petition, the Board agreed with RPI and distinguished between dismissals without prejudice under Rule 41(a) and those relating to consolidation of cases under Rule 42, which the Board viewed as analogous to a conditional dismissal:
As pointed out by Patent Owner, in Macauto the infringement suit against the petitioner was dismissed voluntarily without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), pursuant to a joint stipulation. Macauto, slip op. at 14-15 (PTAB 2013) (Paper 18). The Macauto decision noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has interpreted consistently the effect of voluntary dismissals without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) as leaving the parties as though the action had never been brought. Id. at 15-16 (quoting Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bonneville Associates, Ltd. Partnership v. Baram, 165 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Bonneville)). With respect to the co-pending litigation here, however, although the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York ordered that the voluntary dismissal of Dynamic I was without prejudice, the Court did so as part of a consolidation of Dynamic I and Dynamic II pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. Prelim. Resp. 6; Ex. 1022, 2. Macauto, we note, relied on cases interpreting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), not Fed. R. Civ. P. 42.
* * *
We find informative a case from the Third Circuit that recognized, similar to Bonneville, that a "statute of limitations is not tolled by the filing of a complaint subsequently dismissed without prejudice," as "the original complaint is treated as if it never existed." Cardio-Medical Assocs. v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr., 721 F.2d 68, 77 (3d Cir.1983) (Cardio-Medical). Nonetheless, Cardio-Medical recognized an exception where the limitations period is tolled by the filing of a complaint, which is later dismissed without prejudice, if the order of dismissal grants leave to amend within a time certain. See id. The rationale for this exception is that "[a]n order merely dismissing a complaint without prejudice could result in a significant period of delay prior to the bringing of a new action." Brennan v. Kulick, 407 F.3d 603, 607 (3d Cir.2005). But with a conditional dismissal, "[t]he conditions specified in the order prevent a plaintiff from indefinitely extending the limitations period." Id.
The Board also relied on a PTAB decision regarding the effect of filing an amended complaint, which the Board again viewed as analogous to a dismissal of a first case when consolidated with a later case:
We also find informative another panel's decision holding that the filing of an amended complaint does not render the original complaint a nullity. Loral Space & Communications, Inc. v. ViaSat, Inc., IPR2014-00236 (PTAB 2014) (Paper 7) ("An amended complaint is just that-a complaint that has been amended. The original complaint has been amended, and has not gone away in the same sense as a complaint dismissed without prejudice."). Again, here, Dynamic I immediately continued as a consolidated case, similar, in effect, to an amended case.
On July 8, 2014, Apple filed a request for rehearing of the Board's decision not to institute inter partes review of the'798 patent. Apple argued that "the stipulated voluntary dismissal of the first action was without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which is the only authority in the Federal Rules that permits the parties to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order." On July 31, the Board rejected Apple's argument and denied Apple's request:
The Decision states that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice as part of a consolidation, which immediately continues the cause of action, will not be treated as a nullity in this case. Decision 6-7. That is so, because it is not the same as a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, in which the cause of action is not immediately continued. Id. The Decision notes this is particularly so when the stipulation of dismissal indicates that the first cause of action "proceed[s]" into the second cause of action including the discovery and legal positions taken by the parties in the first action. Id. The Decision, therefore, does not rest on the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure under which the cause of action was dismissed. In other words, whether or not the dismissal could occur under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 would not change the result of the Decision.
The Board also rejected Apple's argument that "[t]he Board's decision to treat the 'consolidation' of the pleadings in the two actions as a continuation of the voluntarily dismissed, first action is unsupported by any legal authority." Paper 14 at 4-5 (citing cases).
Following the denial of its request for rehearing, Apple filed the instant request for a second rehearing. Apple argued that "a second rehearing by an expanded panel is authorized because Rule 42.5(a) authorizes the Board to take action in a proceeding 'in any situation not specifically covered by this part...'" The Board denied Apple's second request for rehearing (its third attempt to initiate the second IPR and fourth attempt to initiate an IPR on the '798 Patent) because Apple's "second request for rehearing by an expanded panel is improper because the rehearing requested allowed under 42.71(d) has been filed and denied." The Board also rejected Apple's contention that the request was proper because it was request to rehear, by an expanded panel, the decision denying the first rehearing:
Petitioner also appears to argue that its request is a request to rehear, by an expanded panel, the decision to deny the first rehearing. This is an argument of form over substance. Petitioner's request is in fact a request for rehearing of the decision to institute trial as evidenced by the fact that the relief requested is the institution of trial. Finally, even if the second rehearing request was allowable under Rule 42.71(d), it is untimely and filed without first seeking authorization from the Board. The deadline for filing a request for rehearing is "[w]ithin 30 days of the entry of . . . a decision not to institute trial." 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(2).
**********
There are several take-aways from this proceeding: first, for the purposes of the one-year statute of limitations under Section 315(b), the consolidation of an earlier filed case into a later filed case will not reset the time, i.e., the clock will continue to run from the first filed action; second, the Board appears skeptical regarding whether a second request for rehearing by an expanded panel is allowed, at least where the relief sought in the second rehearing request is the same as sought in the first, rehearing request; and third, even if the rules permit a second rehearing, it must be filed within the 30 day period under Rule 42.71(d)(2).
There was a lot of good stuff on the call Maddawg1. I think it took huge balls for Hollis to even host it, let alone allow people to ask some hard questions. I thought he handled it well and was pretty darn honest and forthright frankly.
He agreed, driving revenues are all that matters and that talk is cheap. He indicated he had a very real plan to do just that. It's now up to him to execute.
Truth is that he hasn't been paid in years. He's not getting rich struggling to salvage something here. Only way he gets anything for the years of efforts and loans to the company is if he can make the current business work. Considering the money has already been spent on the manual and the fact the opportunity for it to be sold appears significant, maybe his slight optimism on the call is justified.
Time will tell but I thought the call a step in the right direction and expect we'll possibly hear more in January. With high risk, comes possible high reward. At least we know our maximum downside in light of the recent retracement to current levels, and it's pretty insignificant at this point.
Not yet crusher. I'm not ready to throw in the towel quite yet. I don't know if you listened to last weeks call, but Hollis is either glutton for punishment and lost his marbles, or he really might finally have something. Anyone who is willing to be that transparent and put themselves right in the firing line of shareholders is pretty darn unique in the penny world as you know. Again, he earned a stripe with me based on that call.
If he really does have something with the manual, there's no doubt the market opportunity very sizeable. From current levels, it won't take too much to create real value since virtually none is currently being perceived.
Again it's down to execution which clearly has not always been the company's strong suit.
I wouldn't bet the kids college fund and this is as high risk as high risk can be. That said, from this price, the risk is minimal and the potential reward could be quite high.
The key is if the manual is really done, and he said it was, then it could be extremely marketable and could drive some nice revenues. All he needs to do is generate some revenues. If he does that, the shares will inevitably trade higher. If not, be prepared to lose .0002. Better than Vegas right!
Sudden silence? Did you listen to the call he hosted the other day? I was actually pleasantly surprised despite having low expectations. I thought it took huge balls to address shareholders in that forum. Also thought he was pretty candid and honest. Clearly the stock is the flyer of all flyers and should be bought with risk capital only, but it sounded like the book is complete and can now be marketed. While he has to execute, there is no denying there is a market for that particular product. We shall see...
I just bought 5k at 22 cents.
SecretCaps
Three Microcap Stocks You Should Own, Now!
Posted on Dec. 17, 2014, 1:26 p.m.
(1) SilverSun Technologies:
SilverSun Technologies (SSNT) is an under the radar $20M microcap company with an impressive growth story. Headquartered in Livingston, New Jersey, SilverSun is a technology solution provider to small businesses offering a wide array of solutions ranging from electronic data interchange (EDI) software to enterprise resource planning (ERP) software.
SilverSun’s growth has been impressive. Revenue in 2013 was up 32% and up 21% in the 1Q of 2014. Overall, revenue has increased 130% over the past four years. With a range of solutions and an accretive strategy to consolidate the market of Sage resellers, we believe this growth trend will continue. The company’s success has not been recognized by the market as SilverSun is valued far below its peers. This valuation disparity adds to SilverSun being an attractive investment opportunity prior to it being discovered.
With a high level of insider ownership, management’s interests are aligned perfectly with shareholders. SilverSun’s key growth drivers range from the acquisition of accretive Sage resellers to the new ability to compete with industry giants such as SAP (SAP) and Oracle (ORCL) for bigger deals. The company is also targeting to move the mass amount of business documents between companies from the physical to the digital world with its MAPADOC EDI solution. With a conservative 30% revenue growth target Q/Q moving forward, SilverSun offers long term investors a very attractive investment opportunity.
Overall, we are up considerably from our addition to SSNT at $0.06 and $0.18 as shares currently stand at $0.30. Our 20 page comprehensive report and CEO interview came before the company reported its best results in its 12 year history, with net income rising 350% in the first nine month of this year.