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.
Query:
Why would Hudson be selling if there's such a strong potential for a 4 fold gain after the MM decision? Something doesn't add up.
dam78 excellent post!
JJS -
The definition of what a "mistake" consists of exactly..... will help us all understand what specific "de novo" review still exists at the CAFC...
Does this mean that our portfolio's will contain double the stock but @ 1/2 the current stock price?
Thanks LOL,
That's an interesting quotation and sounds as though the
certificate of correction cures the patents as if they originally had been in such corrected form and they have the same effect and operation in law for causes thereafter... very straight forward. I think this may be why ATVI decided to move forward without moving to have WDDD's refile.
MARKMAN results Duein 30-60 days. this could take much longer. Did the courtroom clerk tell you this also>
I'm trying to understand just the amount of risk with the WDDD going forward from this point and why the hell would ATVI (having the option) would agree to allow the case to move forward.
Agreed, past infringement and limited damages in this current ATVI case but how does the certificate of correction fix the validity going forward. After Judge Casper ruled that the patents were invalid prior to the cert of correction she gave the parties the chance to confer to decide if this case is dismissed or if WDDD should refile a new case. The joint decision was to proceed. My question is why would
ATVI agree to proceed unless the alternative was a worst scenerio? Why wouldn't they have argued for a new case? Seems like ATVI, with the invalidity up to the Cert. of correction was in the drivers seat and could have put this off for years and maybe forever if they forced WDDD to refile. Unless, perhaps, if WDDD were to file a new case, the certificate of correction allows all to be as they should with respect to the validity of the patents back to the original provisional application and ATVI would again be on the defense for a much larger damages period. WDDD's agreed to move forward since WDDD is looking for a favorable judgment in the least amount of time possible, which would cause other infringers to fall in line with settlements.
so what is really confusing to me is why did ATVI agree to move the current case forward and not force WDDD to refile? The judge clearly gave them this option to generate an argument.
not so fast gents...
I see the error in the transmittal sheet but taking the devils advocate where is the specifications sheet..? as per regulations at that time...
1. Under the old rules:
The 1996 version of the regulation requires reference to a “prior provisional application” “in the first sentence of the specification following the title.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(4) (1996).
The specifications sheet is what we need a copy of to verify this was only a clerical error. If a clerical error that most likely "repairable by the court" If not, then ATVI has a valid argument, that the regulation wasn't followed with respect to the filling of the first patent.
isn't this the problem that the 1996 regulation requires reference to a “prior provisional application” “in the first sentence of the specification following the title.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(4) (1996). There is no dispute that neither the ‘690 patent nor the ‘045 patent reference the provisional application in the first sentence following the title.
Accordingly, neither patent can claim priority to the provisional application.
My question is does the certificate of correction fix this for cases going forward? and thus fix the prior art question? If not, why did ATVI agree to continue with this case and not simply make WDDD refile adding years to this litigation? Judge Casper clearly gave them this option and the ball was in ATVI's court.
Answers to this question... along with EDVA's work on the patent claim construction interpretation will make me want to grab more of this stock .
Rolvram,
I understand this somewhat better now.
It really hadn't dawned on me why ATVI would agree to move forward unless there was a good chance that if the case were refiled they would potentially be on the hook back to the provisional application. As you say, argued they did and the decision was reached to march forward.
I believe if ATVI had the choice, and weren't concerned with potential larger damages, due to the patents being valid, they would have stalled and delayed this litigation further and thereby killing WDDD completely due to the delay.
Thanks!
ROLVRAM,
Where's the proof that WDDD refered to the provisional patent in their 490' filing? Did the USPTO agree to such a mistake. If so, I didn't see that in the certificate of correction.
There's no "proof in the pudding" as the Judge left open the option for WDDD's and ATVI to agree to the judges opinion, and keep moving forward based on her findings or refile the case. either way the damages period would be the same... from the date of the certified correction forward as per her judgment. She wasn't giving any special treatment, just a simple option to not have to repeat the case from scratch.
Why are you using all caps?
You are so talented why don't you just stick to the facts and admit your wrong... shouldn't have titled your SA piece the way you did?
Check me if I'm wrong but the priority chain was broken until corrected last year. If the priority chain was not clear to the general public and the rules hadn't been followed, how can anyone infringing be liable for damages prior to the certificate of correction? This obviously doesn't mean WDDD can take advantage of their patents going forward against other current infringers. I betting they have the goods and will proceed accordingly. What I wish is that the pumping stop and you patent plays, simply help us understand the limitations of WDDD's position due to the past patent office filing errors and not fill the investment community with false speculations of WDDD's updside .
See the captions below of how I support my point above.
All of the Patents-in-Suit reference U.S. Patent No. 6,219,045 (“the ‘045 patent”). ¶¶ 7, 13, 16, 19, 22. The ‘045 patent was filed on November 12, 1996 and issued on April 17, 2001. ¶ 8. The ‘045 patent does not claim priority to any earlier filed application and does not contain any reference to the Provisional Application. ¶¶ 9-11
1. Under the old rules:
The 1996 version of the regulation requires reference to a “prior provisional application” “in the first sentence of the specification following the title.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(4) (1996). There is no dispute that neither the ‘690 patent nor the ‘045 patent reference the provisional application in the first sentence following the title. Accordingly, neither patent can claim priority to the provisional application.
2. Judges words not mine:
Even if the 2000 version of the regulation did apply, the Patents-In-Suit could not claim priority to the provisional application. The November 29, 2000 version of the regulation states that: Any non provisional application claiming the benefit of one or more prior filed co-pending provisional applications must contain a reference to each such prior provisional application, identifying it as a provisional application, and including the provisional application number (consisting of series code and serial number). Unless the reference required by this paragraph is included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), the specification must contain or be amended to contain such reference in the first sentence following any title.
Thus, according to that regulation, any reference to the Provisional Application must be either in “the specification in the first sentence following any title” or in an “application data sheet.” Under MPEP [the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure] § 201.11, the specific reference can be either in the first sentence of the specification or in the application data sheet”
@PP's
I think you're seriously back peddling. I spoke to the courtroom clerk for Judge Casper. She indicated very clearly that there was never a scheduled video recording let alone a "video streaming" event scheduled for this event.
Please tell us all where you received the information that this specific event was to be streamed. Maybe you believed since the last event was recorded this would be also. If so, that's a broad leap based on the few video's that have been recorded and made public thus far under this novel program.
no offence, but I also don't think Jesse Ropes is concerned in the least with what is inked on SA .
Patents-in-Suit, i.e., the ‘690, ‘558, ‘856, ‘501 and ‘998 patents, are entitled to claim the November 13, 1995 filing date of the Provisional Application. This requirement is more than a mere technicality: Although [the “specific reference” requirement] might appear to be a technical provision, it embodies an important public policy. The information required to be disclosed is information that would enable a person searching the records of the Patent Office to determine with a minimum of effort the exact filing date upon which a patent applicant is relying to support the validity of his application or the validity of a patent issued on the basis of one of a series of applications. In cases such as this, in which two or more applications have been filed and the validity of a patent rests upon the filing date of an application other than that upon which the patent was issued, a person, even if he had conducted a search of the Patent Office records, could unwittingly subject himself to exactly this type of infringement suit unless the later application adequately put him on notice that the applicant was relying upon a filing date different from that stated in the later application. As the court said in Sticker Industrial Supply Corp. v. Blaw-Knox Co., [405 F.2d 90, 93 (7th Cir. 1968): “Congress may well have thought that [this requirement] was necessary to eliminate the burden on the public to engage in long and expensive search of previous applications in order to determine the filing date of a later patent. . . . The inventor is the person best suited to understand the relation of his applications, and it is no hardship to require him to disclose this information.” I believe the issue of priority chain will come back to haunt us.
BTW - I own this stock and made a considerable investment. I just don't think we should be all looking through the rose-colored glasses of PP's.
Thx
Technically Judge Casper did order the WDDD patents invalid >>>
The Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that all of the asserted claims in the Patents-In-Suit are invalid. D. 83. For the following reasons, the Court ALLOWS the Defendants’ motion.
and then further ordered:
"Instead, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to discuss whether the appropriate course of action is for the Court to dismiss the instant action (without preventing Worlds from commencing a new action alleging infringement from the date of the certificates going forward), or merely confine this decision to infringement allegedly occurring from the dates the patents issued through the lives of the Patents-In-Suit. The parties shall file a joint statement, not exceeding more than five (5) pages, outlining their respective positions with the Court no later than March 27, 2014."
Dead money until the markman results?
Geez! With the MM behind us now. Shouldn't WDDD's be back up to were where we were before the flash crash?
I was told by the HJ Caspers courtroom clerk that there isn't a video and there never was going to be one.
PP's is full OF BS!
Can anyone here clarify the significance or lack thereof regarding the certificate of correction. Does this limit all damages from infringement suits brought by WDDD to only the period from the Cert of correction forward? Or is it just in this ATVI case since the certificate was issued after the case began?
I would think a future infringer on WDDD patents would argue that there wasn't a clear "provisional claims history" and thus how would one have known of infringement prior to the issue of cert of correction.
Thanks Data. I was hoping you might identify "southie" as neighboring the seaport district. Sorry for all the cross examination but it's important to validate the story.
OK but what is the local term for that area of town and is the local term for the area it also boarder's??
Just Curious DataStream.
to help validate your claims and no disrespect but how was traffic in Boston today around the courthouse? Did you drive in from the north, South or West? What part of town would you describe the courthouse is located, in local terms.
thanks
This kicks-off in 5 minutes!
I agree that the joe public has this wrong but believe the confusion and uncertainty is holding this back amongst the current patent litigation environment against NPE's and especially against software patent trolls. "trolls" is their word not mine.
what keeps me in this game is the following:
BOSTON, MA--(Marketwired - Mar 14, 2014) - Judge Denise Casper issued a ruling March 13, 2014 on the Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) hearing that allows World's Inc. (OTCBB: WDDD) to proceed with its patent infringement suit against Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. and Activision Publishing, Inc.'s (Activision). The MSJ hearing held October 17, 2013 addressed Activision's dispute of Worlds Inc.'s November 1995 patent priority date. The court did not dismiss the case as requested by Activision. In fact, the ruling stated, "The Court declines to enter judgment in Defendants' (Activision) favor at this time." Moreover, the court upheld the validity of the patents by ruling; "Indeed, nothing about the Court's order prevents Worlds from asserting infringement from the date of the certificate going forward."
Judge Casper's ruling prevents Worlds Inc. from pursuing damages for the period prior to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) issuance of Certificates of Correction on September 24, 2013 that amended Worlds' 6,219,045 and 7,181,790 patents to include comprehensive priority information, which specifically references Worlds' November 1995 provisional patent application and confirms World's 1995 priority date.
I think why most investors are not taking action in WDDD is the complexity of the certificates of correction and if the patents can claim back to the priority date for this case. Judge Casper ruled the patents are invalid but the Markman marches on? Confusion is key with regard to the lack of interest with WDDD.