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.
New and better technology for cbd oil extraction?? @20cents/gram. Found this to share.
https://abattis.com/2017/12/12/abattis-confirms-breakthrough-extraction-technology-capabilities/
Not specifically for sfor ...but something good to read
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 23992 / November 20, 2017
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ibrahim Almagarby and Microcap Equity Group LLC, No. 17-cv-62255 (S.D. Fla. November 17, 2017)
SEC Charges Individual and His Company with Operating an Unregistered Dealer Business
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged a Florida-based individual and his company with acting as unregistered dealers in the sale of billions of shares of numerous penny stock issuers.
The SEC's complaint, filed in federal district court in south Florida, alleges that, beginning in January 2013, Ibrahim Almagarby and his company, Microcap Equity Group LLC (MEG), engaged in a business that purchased aged penny stock issuer debts. After converting the debts into equity, they sold the resultant shares into the market. At the time of this conduct, the complaint alleges that neither Almagarby nor MEG were registered with the SEC as a dealer and Almagarby was not associated with a registered broker or dealer. Through these activities, Almagarby and MEG purchased over $1.1 million of aged debts of 39 microcap issuers and sold into the market over 7.4 billion shares generating over $1.4 million in ill-gotten gains.
The SEC's complaint charges both Almagarby and MEG with violating Section 15(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Almagarby as a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for MEG's registration violations. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, civil penalties, surrender for cancellation of MEG's remaining shares in the penny stock issuers that are the subject of this action and surrender of any conversion rights in its remaining holdings of issuer debts, and penny stock bars.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by James Thibodeau of the Salt Lake Regional Office, and the litigation will be led by Daniel Wadley and Amy Oliver.
SEC Complaint
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2017/comp23992.pdf
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2017/lr23992.htm
The companies MEG bought debt from:
Ordering Defendant Microcap Equity Group LLC to surrender for cancellation its remaining shares of stock of, and surrender its remaining conversion rights under the convertible securities issued by the following issuers: Aluf Holdings, Inc., Axxess Pharma, Inc., Bulova Technologies Group, Inc., CD International Enterprises, Inc., CUBA Beverage Company, Daniels Corporate Advisory Company, Inc., Dewmar International BMC, Inc., East Coast Diversified Corp., Elray Resources, Inc., Energy Revenue America, Inc., Eyes on the Go, Inc., Gold & Silver Mining of Nevada, Inc., Gold and GemStone Mining Inc., Green Energy Enterprises, Inc., Greenfield Farms Food, Inc., Grid Petroleum Corp./ Simlatus Corporation, Halberd Corporation, Halitron, Inc., Healthnostics, Inc., Healthy & Tasty Brands Corporation Indo Global Exchange(s) Pte, Ltd., InoLife Technologies, Inc., InternetArray, Inc., Las Vegas Railway Express, Inc., LIG Assets, Inc., Medical Care Technologies Inc., Mining Global, Inc., MyECheck, Inc., Next Galaxy Corp., North American Cannabis Holdings, Inc., PM&E, Inc., PotNetwork Holdings Inc., PPJ Healthcare Enterprises, Inc., Quasar Aerospace Industries, Inc., Sanomedics, Inc., Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc., and Urban Ag Corp.
Remember Centrify is part of the 6 billion dollar Federal deal as well!!
k thank you
The microchips aren’t necessarily what is infringing. It seems to be a piece of the patent.
I agree, but then that makes INTEL the infringing party for making infringing parts of the microchip? or cisco is infringing by combining/assembling together those chips which they purchased from Intel without Intel knowing how they were being used? If Intel had prior knowledge of what the chips were being used for, then they will be guilty under American law.
k thanks
Intel makes the microchips and Cisco puts it all together.
Hey Ram on your comment above ...who has the blue prints...most likely Cisco?? and they contracted Intel to make the chips?? pse comment
Agree, and also a delay game maybe?? If Intel was an issue they would not have waited until now, to subpoena them.
Pacer up date...subpoenas on Intel by defendants
update RPX response today
Wow!! Thanks ZPaul
Netflix expanding to Canada. There are 8 million French speaking people in Canada.... How about a French app on viva??
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netflix-canadian-content-broadcaster-1.4309381
class action maybe needed here
Guys check out the board of directors at CEEK. I am sure there is serious money backing Ceek for Mary to be able to hire all that talent!! Hopefully a merger is coming with NXGA....who own the IP.
https://www.ceek.com/advisors
Something good to read.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-176
Hot sector hopefully JF tries for a licensing deal with the Chinese!!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-26/china-s-netflix-is-said-to-seek-at-least-8-billion-value-in-ipo
Dr LI ..welcome
No one should worry about the pps. SFOR should level up very quickly and finish the year biggly. It's gonna be tremendous believe me...
In Win for Patent Owners, PTAB Clamps Down on Repeat Attacks
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board will no longer tolerate multiple, serial petitions for inter partes review that target the same patent claims.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has extended an olive branch to patent owners last week just as a constitutional challenge to its existence began heating up in the Supreme Court.
With Chief Judge David Ruschke and Deputy Chief Judge Scott Boalick signing on to the decision, the PTAB made clear in a decision this past week that it will no longer tolerate multiple, serial petitions for inter partes review (IPR) that target the same patent claims. Serial petitions are a hot-button issue for patent owners, many of whom feel besieged by the administrative procedures set up by the America Invents Act (AIA) to determine patent validity.
"We are mindful of the goals of the AIA namely, to improve patent quality and make the patent system more efficient," Judge Sheila McShane wrote in General Plastic Industrial v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, issued by the PTAB on Sept. 6. But "we also recognize the potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks on patents."
The AIA allows anyone sued for patent infringement to petition for inter partes review for one year. The board is required to say within six months whether it will launch a review of challenged claims. Patent owners have complained that some petitioners hold arguments in reserve, then use the board's decision denying institution as a guide to filing a new petition.
McShane's decision says the board won't accept such gamesmanship in the future without good cause. Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse, she wrote. The absence of any restrictions on follow-on petitions would allow petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.
Michael Sandonato, one of three Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto attorneys who defended Canon's patents before the board, said in a written statement that he was pleased that a panel including top PTAB leadership found the staggered filings were inappropriate. The patents at issue protect important Canon technology, and we are heartened that the board is not allowing General Plastic to challenge them in unfair ways, he said.
General Plastic was represented by Locke Lord, which had argued that the AIA permits multiple petitions so long as they're not based on the same previous arguments and prior art. The denial of a first petition should not be fatal if petitioners can later locate new invalidating art, they argued.
Patent owners have been vocal about the issue. Former PTO Director Michelle Lee had promised a review earlier this year before her tenure ended abruptly, and the PTO's Patent Public Advisory Committee gave Ruschke an earful about serial petitions at its May meeting.
The board is facing a more existential threat right now at the Supreme Court, where the justices are gearing up to hear a constitutional challenge to inter partes review this fall or early next year. Over the last two weeks major pharmaceutical, industrial and agriculture companies submitted amicus curiae briefs calling on the high court to end IPRs and send all patent validity challenges back to federal court. Conservative think tanks have weighed in against the PTAB too.
Ironically, one of the issues patent owners have groused about in briefing to the Supreme Court is the PTAB's habit of stacking some panels with additional judges. Two judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently penned a concurring opinion to express serious concerns about the practice.
In General Plastic the board reasserted the chief judge's authority to expand a panel for various reasons, including the exceptional nature of the issues presented, such as serial petitioning. The panel started with five judges more than the usual three because it involved five consolidated IPR petitions. Then Ruschke and Boalick joined in the decision to deny rehearing and set out ground rules for serial petitions.
Ropes & Gray partner Scott McKeown recently analyzed expanded panels at the PTAB and found they occur in only about .5 percent of cases. He concluded that they're used to secure uniformity of decisions, not to reach particular results.
In Win for Patent Owners, PTAB Clamps Down on Repeat Attacks
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board will no longer tolerate multiple, serial petitions for inter partes review that target the same patent claims.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has extended an olive branch to patent owners last week just as a constitutional challenge to its existence began heating up in the Supreme Court.
With Chief Judge David Ruschke and Deputy Chief Judge Scott Boalick signing on to the decision, the PTAB made clear in a decision this past week that it will no longer tolerate multiple, serial petitions for inter partes review (IPR) that target the same patent claims. Serial petitions are a hot-button issue for patent owners, many of whom feel besieged by the administrative procedures set up by the America Invents Act (AIA) to determine patent validity.
"We are mindful of the goals of the AIA namely, to improve patent quality and make the patent system more efficient," Judge Sheila McShane wrote in General Plastic Industrial v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, issued by the PTAB on Sept. 6. But "we also recognize the potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks on patents."
The AIA allows anyone sued for patent infringement to petition for inter partes review for one year. The board is required to say within six months whether it will launch a review of challenged claims. Patent owners have complained that some petitioners hold arguments in reserve, then use the board's decision denying institution as a guide to filing a new petition.
McShane's decision says the board won't accept such gamesmanship in the future without good cause. Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse, she wrote. The absence of any restrictions on follow-on petitions would allow petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.
Michael Sandonato, one of three Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto attorneys who defended Canon's patents before the board, said in a written statement that he was pleased that a panel including top PTAB leadership found the staggered filings were inappropriate. The patents at issue protect important Canon technology, and we are heartened that the board is not allowing General Plastic to challenge them in unfair ways, he said.
General Plastic was represented by Locke Lord, which had argued that the AIA permits multiple petitions so long as they're not based on the same previous arguments and prior art. The denial of a first petition should not be fatal if petitioners can later locate new invalidating art, they argued.
Patent owners have been vocal about the issue. Former PTO Director Michelle Lee had promised a review earlier this year before her tenure ended abruptly, and the PTO's Patent Public Advisory Committee gave Ruschke an earful about serial petitions at its May meeting.
The board is facing a more existential threat right now at the Supreme Court, where the justices are gearing up to hear a constitutional challenge to inter partes review this fall or early next year. Over the last two weeks major pharmaceutical, industrial and agriculture companies submitted amicus curiae briefs calling on the high court to end IPRs and send all patent validity challenges back to federal court. Conservative think tanks have weighed in against the PTAB too.
Ironically, one of the issues patent owners have groused about in briefing to the Supreme Court is the PTAB's habit of stacking some panels with additional judges. Two judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently penned a concurring opinion to express serious concerns about the practice.
In General Plastic the board reasserted the chief judge's authority to expand a panel for various reasons, including the exceptional nature of the issues presented, such as serial petitioning. The panel started with five judges more than the usual three because it involved five consolidated IPR petitions. Then Ruschke and Boalick joined in the decision to deny rehearing and set out ground rules for serial petitions.
Ropes & Gray partner Scott McKeown recently analyzed expanded panels at the PTAB and found they occur in only about .5 percent of cases. He concluded that they're used to secure uniformity of decisions, not to reach particular results.
Good to see the $SFOR gang here....finally welcome.
SOFTBANK HAS BEEN THROWING MONEY ON START UPS....KAY MENTIONED AN INVESTOR COMING ON BOARD ...IF OOBA IS BEING ADOPTED BY BIG COMPANIES .....AS WE SEE....MAYBE WE COULD BENEFIT FROM SOME OF THEIR FUNDS EG
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/softbank-corp-invests-100-million-into-cybersecurity-start-up-cybereason.html
true
He better be good...its my money in there!!!
For Johnny
The last time i read here was that Mark had reduced the debt to 4 Million dollars
Tried to order from Canada....invalid merchant, Viva may need to look at billing.
Besides the Hispanic Niche there is 8.2 Million people who speak French in Quebec Canada....Mr Falcones there is another market for us ...hopefully you read Ihub. They will love a French APP guaranttered, a lot of people dont speak any English there
Please Michel and Mary what is the way forward...pay us the 5 Million and let us go...some of us have been holding since .19cents....its not easy...please do the right thing and show us the clear path!!!!
Cory at Bloomberg TV usually covers HULU...its high time we let him know about OTTV!!
For sure its been a long wait...i was in at .0005 average.
Holding long and strong....SFOR!!!!!
While we wait here...have you guys been in the OTT**V mania??
Thank you
anyone able to post pacer update....please? on DUO
pacer update... Duo letter to judge
Good to see you here Papa invited everyone at SFOR when this was still .0003. ...Still has lots of room to go
i enjoy your DD all the time! Thank you
Good news to see another giant loss on patent plays! IPR Rpx vs Chanbond/uoip yesterday! hopefully SFOR will sail through that process with ease.
right on! 100mil each on average gives 1.3 BIL, case been going on since 2015 and telecoms ....those companies make a lot of revenues