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.
the software development side is a work in progress but potentially is a higher revenue earner then the hardware side
just was looking at bid and sizes. they backed off since then
man someone is trying to grab million shares at .015
she is great as CEO. she needs a hype man for products though.
Maybe not being able to find anything is a good thing? Some one is trying to clear out the weaker positions in bulk. A
no but im trying to find more court case info. someone is accumulating for a reason
Same here. Settlement would be nice if it provides SH with a 1.00 a share. Which would be about 60 to 100 million because Fortress gets the lion share. drop in the bucket for Apple.
really highlights that the courts trying these cases are really built for constant litigation. The timeline people originally anticipated which was 2 years may be off by a couple more years. If u dont need the cash invested in it then u might as well hold forever.
By Tiffany Hu
Law360 (September 14, 2020, 6:14 PM EDT) -- Apple, HTC and ZTE are asking the Federal Circuit to overturn the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision to uphold a mobile transmission patent owned by an Inventergy Global Inc. affiliate, saying the board's ruling went against its own earlier findings.
In an opening brief filed Friday, the tech companies urged the appeals court to reverse the PTAB's March ruling that upheld the validity of INVT SPE LLC's patent, which covers a way to measure reception quality and adjust the transmission rate on a wireless device based on the results.
The companies said that the PTAB correctly acknowledged that a previous international application known as Keskitalo taught adjusting a data rate and comparing transmission levels. But the board went wrong when it rejected the notion that Keskitalo's transmission rate would change after comparing the results, as described in the disputed claims, they argued.
"[T]he board erred when it concluded — inconsistent with the board's own findings and Keskitalo itself — that Keskitalo failed to disclose the claimed 'rate changing means,'" the brief states. "The board's conclusion lacks substantial evidence and should be reversed."
The trio further argued that the PTAB erred in ruling that an ordinarily skilled person could modify Keskitalo's predetermined thresholds for transmission power to incorporate the average power values taught in an earlier patent known as Lindell to render the other claims obvious.
Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
In 2017, INVT SPE, an affiliate of patent licensing firm Inventergy, lodged separate lawsuits against Apple, Taiwan-based HTC and China-based ZTE, accusing them of infringing its patented technology. The cases were filed in New Jersey federal court.
After the companies petitioned for inter partes review of the patents, the U.S. International Trade Commission in October 2018 agreed to probe whether they were importing and selling LTE- and 3G-compliant mobile phones, tablets and smartwatches that infringe INVT's patents. The cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the ITC investigation, court documents show.
Earlier this year, the PTAB held a hearing over the patent at issue, where an attorney for the tech companies twice told the board that he found several of INVT SPE's arguments to be "a little bit rich." But the board in March upheld the patent's validity, prompting the present appeal.
The PTAB challenges have led to mixed results for both sides. More recently, the board in April invalidated claims in INVT SPE's patent after finding that Apple made a strong showing of obviousness compared to the affiliate's "weak showing" of evidence to defend its validity.
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676.
The companies are represented by Adam P. Seitz and Paul R. Hart of Erise IP PA, and Stephen S. Korniczky, Martin R. Bader and Ericka J. Schulz of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
INVT SPE is represented by Cyrus Morton of Robins Kaplan LLP.
The case is Apple Inc. et al. v. INVT SPE LLC, case number 20-1859, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
--Additional reporting by Britain Eakin and Nadia Dreid. Editing by Adam LoBelia.
anything good come from the article?
the 51 page report is full of a lot of technical and legal jargon. Sounds like a uphill battle is my quick take. If everyone wants it let me know.
Was able to get a PACER acct. Surprisingly not that hard. So far the latest document is the appeal which was looked over as of July. No mention of a timeline to process, hopefully they issue a tentative one so we can track it.
Was able to get a PACER acct. Surprisingly not that hard. So far the latest document is the appeal which was looked over as of July. No mention of a timeline to process, hopefully they issue a tentative one so we can track it.
Ok case 20-1881 INVT SPE vs AAPL
Waiting for my pacer access.
There is info that on 11 June 2020 that an appeals was filed to the Federal Circuit Court US Appeals.
Time for appeals may take between 3 to 4 months. We are looking at being in past 2 months.
I am having an incredibly tough time finding that info alone. I do not know what the exact correlation is with FORTRESS and their collective cases but I am assuming it must play in some part to the upcoming appeal.
nothing from them. crickets.
been following the appeal after the PTAB fiasco but hard to track dates without a pacer acct.
thanks i figured if they didnt reward sh then a suit would follow.
I really just want to know what shareholder rights we have if Fortress wins or settles this lawsuit. Can they win and screw us over? Or are we all holding on to get a piece of the pie?
data is hard to come by for this company. U need a spiderweb chart with who is involved in this case.
Cant find anything that would benefit INVT out right. Did see that Apple and Intel have done some more legal actions against Fortress as of 6 Aug. Can view the legal doc but someone must be in the know.
To me it seems like someone is feeling a good result can arise from all this litigation and is snatching up shares for cheap since most of us are sick of waiting for something to happen.
It is weird activity for no readily available news. Dont think it is someone late to the party. Could be someone massing shares in prep for some good news. Either way if its nothing then it will fall back to .0156. Otherwise hope it is for prep of some settlement news.
i am trying to find if anything from the latest PTAB appeal filed in June. Not at my comp so cant search to see if any movement made. this cant be someone new though right. Is this some sort of last ditch attempt to organize a pump and then dump or is this legit?
I hear you. I wasted too much effort on this stock as well. Well here is to moving on. cheers!
this looks promising.
invt appealed that decision. submitted early june. dont know anything after that.
Ok for those tracking the case. June 6th was the appeal. 49 page docket was sent. Hopefully we hear soon more timelines
Yeah im going to give it until the appeal before i stick a fork in them.
Anyone hear getting the gtxo ad on their fb feed. so far it has 2 likes. Im guessing they want to spread the word about their ppe products. But I wont share against my fb principles.
I did notice that the lawyers for invt changed. I forget the previous lead lawyer, Kessler? I cant find the article that invt had a real bad showing. like the impression i got was that invt, really fortress, showed up unprepared to make a convincing argument.
Ty for providing that link.
patent trial and appeal board. and stopped getting kicked off
If that is true then there is hope. It seemed unilaterally that all of INVT patent assertions were rejected because they are considered patent trolls. That seems unfair right off the bat. Hopefully the legal team steps it up.
Man I am a bit frustrated with the lawsuits nit panning out. Apple was the big one. But the Geotab lawsuit was not good either. What is plan appeal?
Anyone find anything on the ITC case. Last I read May 18 2020 was suppose to be another update. Cant find nothing
what brought you to INVT?
this is concerning. i dont know what to make of it either. really wish invt would release a presser
So you think the company is out to screw us or will they take of us?
I am thinking that there has been stock purchased by GTXO or that other company they leased the patents to. Won't know until I see GTXO financials. However, it all could be from accumulation from some current shareholder ahead of the March/April 2020 ITC ruling. I don't think it is new investors because there is no publicity for INVT.
wish i knew definitively but just got a few theories.
yeah i hear u on that. the silence from this company. Im good if they have to play it legally smart just hoping they are not trying to screw over sh.
Yeah it is linked with the GTFO patent. Even though it is not the thing I am waiting to hear from I am surprised INVT as a company is not making a press releases.