Can this help Worlds?

Supreme Court Ends Laches Defense in Patent Cases


http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202781757276/Supreme-Court-Ends-Laches-Defense-in-Patent-Cases?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=0&slreturn=20170222123712

PTAB's 3-Year Check-Up: How Rulings Hold Up At Fed. Circ.

http://www.law360.com/articles/699863/ptab-s-3-year-check-up-how-rulings-hold-up-at-fed-circ

How do they decide which judges are selected?

Why would Kidrin announce the reverse split is happening, but not the ratio as well?

If that is true, why is everyone saying a 20 for 1 R/S?

Agreed, but Worlds patents are not abstract or combined ("seminal technology"). I would be curious to know how Mayer and/or Wallach could contort into an obviousness ruling? If Susman was really concerned I would think they would head back to Casper, no?

That said, a win at the CAFC is checkmate Worlds.

Well done!

Thanks DD, do thy have to appeal the UPTSO mistake before they head back to Casper or can they appeal after the trial?

I thought Casper limited Worlds patents to three years?

Thanks, PatentPlays agreed with you, so you may not have erred in your logic. Time will tell.

Dave, what happened to using the Judges logic? What changed your thinking?



"What's interesting however, is that we know the 2D vs 3D issue is at the heart of this case. We know funkhowser doesn't speak of "3d avatars" and in the ruling the judges themselves argue that since some patents expressly state 3D avatar and some do not one, must assume there is a reason. That reason being clearly those that don't say it aren't 3D and those that do would be 3D - logic."

"E. Thus, in the judges own logic they are stating that a patent that says 3D is related to 3D, and a patent that does not state 3D it is not. Thus, by logical implication if the patent they killed is prior art on Funkhowser because both are not 3D and Funkhowser is mute on this point, I ask how will they then turn and say funkhowser is prior art on the 3D aspect of say the 501 patent? In my view they cannot as they would be arguing both sides of the same coin!"

Thanks in advance!

10-Q - http://seekingalpha.com/filing/3285335

USPTO issues new memorandum on software eligibility in light of McRo, BASCOM

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/11/02/uspto-new-memorandum-software-eligibility-mcro-bascom/id=74445/

FORM HOLDINGS CORPORATION has announced its Annual Meeting of Shareholders as well.

I am under the impression that because they are so close to expiring they will use Phillips and that it will most likely get overturned on appeal if they do not.

Great stuff, thanks for sharing!

Move over Patent Trolls, Efficient Infringement has arrived on the Hill


http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/10/25/efficient-infringement-arrived-hill/id=74131/

It is time for Judge Mayer to Step Down from the Federal Circuit

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/10/06/judge-mayer-step-down-federal-circuit/id=73567/

PTAB Must Provide Explanation in Support of Conclusory Findings

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/ptab-must-provide-explanation-support-conclusory-findings

There Are Restraints on the PTAB in Post-Grant Trials

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2016/09/27/there-are-restraints-on-the-ptab-in-post-grant-tri

More software patent eligible, Federal Circuit says lip synchronization not abstract

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/09/14/software-patent-eligible-federal-circuit-lip-synchronization/id=72832/

House Judiciary Committee to Hold USPTO Oversight Hearing

https://judiciary.house.gov/press-release/house-judiciary-committee-hold-uspto-oversight-hearing/


House Judiciary subcommittee questions Lee on preventing time and attendance abuse at USPTO


http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/09/14/house-judiciary-time-attendance-abuse-uspto/id=72810/

People should be scared...Misleading PTO statistics hide a hopelessly broken PTAB

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/09/06/pto-statistics-hide-broken-ptab/id=72513/


However, the Federal Circuit just agreed to hear the appeal en banc of In re: Aqua Products Inc. to determine if the tight rules that the USPTO are using that deny too many amendments are consistent with the statute.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IN_RE_AQUA_2015-1177_en_banc_order.pdf


http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/09/08/new-legislation-not-needed-fix-post-grant-procedures/id=72431/

Agreed, it looks like it is a real s**t show behind the curtain and their institutional controls are non-existant and there is not accountability, scary stuff.

"It is also further proof of what has continued to come to light in recent weeks about how some patent examiners simply ignore office policy, ignore the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, ignore the Federal Circuit, preventing cases from reaching appeal, and issuing bogus rejections with impunity. Based on what we know is going on in certain Art Units and the conclusions reached in this report there seems to be a near complete breakdown in institutional control at the Patent Office."

Commerce IG Report: Patent examiners defrauded government of millions for unworked time

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/31/patent-examiners-defraud-government/id=72481/

interesting, good find.

Exactly,they were caught red-handed with their hands in the cookie jar. The CAFC is on to them.

Nice to see a company survive IPR.


Lifefactory patent on protective sleeves for containers survives IPR with most claims intact

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/30/lifefactory-patent-protective-sleeves-survives-ipr/id=72405/

PTAB arbitrary and capricious in denying motion to amend in IPR


http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/30/ptab-arbitrary-capricious-denying-motion-amend-ipr/id=72448/

Thanks Data, do you know when/if they will release the transcript?

Does anyone know when the court may respond to their "motions to exclude?" Months, weeks, days or November? Thanks.

Worlds Back On Track; Patent Trial Appeal Board Approaching Convertible Debt Retired


http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/4485991-patent-plays/4908653-worlds-back-track-patent-trial-appeal-board-approaching-convertible-debt-retired?app=1&isDirectRoadblock=false&source=email_rt_author_readmore&uprof=45&utoken=0ae02a70001efd51549623073dca8c97

Thanks!

Does anyone know if the board will rule on the "motions to exclude" before the oral hearing on August 17th? Thanks.

I misunderstood, thanks for the clarification.

CAFC: PTAB Improperly Shifted Burden of Proof on Obviousness to Patent Owner in IPR

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/07/29/ptab-improperly-shifted-burden-proof/id=71409/

When did Worlds increase in shares to 250MM? Kidrin said there was no need.

As far as Bungie acting as a proxy goes, I wonder if Worlds really needs further discovery to prove it or they already have evidence. If so, they did not use it to get the IPR thrown out, but perhaps it is part of their legal strategy to get this thrown out and strengthen their patents. I have no idea, but it would be a nice surprise.

Yes, agreed, and I am curious to see how they will rule on the "Patent Owner's Motion to Exclude Petitioner's Evidence."