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.
GUYS please read
Here is the Amazon link to court filings/updates:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6551902/semcon-ip-inc-v-amazoncom-inc/
Now....
Posting a link with absolutely no details every time something new comes up is NOT useful for the board if you do not have access to get into the filing or motion and give the board the actual details of it.....MOST SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OR ARE FORMATTED TO MAKE A COPY AND PASTE EVEN MORE CONFUSING..
jUST MY OPINION BUT....
It is a WASTE OF TIME and clutters the board with the (USELESS) post and then 4 to 5 "what is this" and "what does it mean?" posts....understood everyone is trying to help and be first to update the board but if you cannot tell the board what the filing means and at least offer a basic description more than "the eagle flies by night", then please DO NOT post a link that no one who does not have access to court listener filings can then say what the new filing refers to...AND IF ANYOINE HAS ACCESS TO COURTLISTENER FILINGS OR HAS A LAWYER BUDDY WHO DOES, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO VOLUNTEER TO GET THE DETAILS WITHIN EACH LINK AND POST THEM AFTER THE FACT, THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE BOARD NEEDS AND I ASSUME SOMEONE HAS ACCESS IF THEY ASK AROUND..BUT THE POSTING OF LINKS WITH NO INFO HAS NO VALUE, AS EVERYONE HAS BEEN GIVEN ACCESS TO SEE THE FILINGS MANY TIMES...WE ALL CAN SEE THEM AND CAN EVEN GET EMAIL UPDATES WHEN THEERE IS A NEW ONE (I DO IT ON DOCKETBIRD)...THAT TO ME IS THE MINIMUM WE ALL SHOULD BE DOING, POSTING THE LINK IS REDUNDANT, POSTING SOMETHING WE CANT SEE IN THE BASIC LINK IF WE CAN GET ACCESS IS WHAT THE BOARD NEEDS...OTHER THAN THAT ASSUME ALL PEOPLE THAT CARE SEE THE NEW UPDATES......
gshep40, I don't read it that way...they use the word BOTH because the lender and lawyers have not gotten a percentage of settlement and they want to disclose it... they said BOTH not ONLY..thats key
To me counsel usually does not participate in the lawsuit settlement as a percentage but they charge their fees based on billable hours.. they usually get paid their fee afterwards and it IS NOT usually based on a percentage.....because these lawsuits are different they are mentioning it..
the sentence says they BOTH get paid from the settlement which is not common so they are mentioning it and understand it does NOT say ONLY the funding source and counsel will participate in the profit (as it is based on a percentage therof) it says they both will which again is uncommon so they are mentioning it so we know the lawyers are participating in a different way based on a percentage..its disclosure but not negative........to me based on how much billable hours have been if it is a market percentage rate QPRC will benefit compared to other cases in this format...id love to see what their contingency % is...love to
Its a motion to withdraw an individual as an attorney on the case....
probably nothing and is very frequent..when attorneys get re assigned to other cases their firm usually officially withdraws them from the case they were on if they wont be working on it going forward....it doesn't mean the FIRM withdrew just one attorney could have left from working on the case to focus elsewhere.......
A motion to withdraw is a written request to a judge asking for permission to end the lawyer's representation of a client while a case is pending in court. The motion must be in a certain format under local court rules, and the attorney must specify a reason for the the withdrawal.
great chart and technical comments ty..
That is great. Thank you cache..... Apologies for recycling but until we get the real good news want to keep reminding...as with mediation a week away already...u never know.....
Timing101- thank you for your reply and that great info....lighting candles and good thoughts here on this end...yankee candle should make one that smells like "easy money"...
AMAZON MEDIATION JUNE 12TH WHAT WOULD YOU DO???!!!!
PRETEND YOU ARE THE AMAZON CASE MEDIATOR BELOW
SUMMARIZED THE MARKMAN CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS BELOW: WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST TO AMAZON AS A MEDIATOR??? MEDIATION WILL START ON JUNE 12TH
HERE IS THE MARKMAN HEARING CONSTRUCTION CLAIM RESULTS:
QPRC went 11-1-1 IN THE CONSTRUCTIONS I COULD SEE
CONSTRUCTION M
Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for including the “is not capable of functioning” or “can not function.” The Court holds that the “Is Not Capable of Functioning”and “Can Not Function” Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION L
Accordingly, Defendant has failed to prove that any claim is indefinite for including “level of permitted power.” The Court hereby holds that the term “level of permitted power” has its plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION K
Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for inclusion of the term “safe level.” The Court hereby construes “safe level” to mean “maximum operable temperature.”
CONSTRUCTION J
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that for a claim including functional language to be definite, the functional language must be supported by descriptions of algorithms for how the function is performed. While this may be true when 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies, Defendant provides no legal support for this as a rule separate from § 112, ¶ 6 and does not directly argue that § 112, ¶ 6 applies to the Determining Terms. Thus, whether the “determining” language is supported by the written description is determined under the enablement or written-description statutory requirements, it is not an issue of claim construction.
Accordingly, the Court holds that Defendant has not proven any claim indefinite by reason of including “determining” in the claim language and holds that the Determining Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION I
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s request to read in the limitations of “voltage generator changes the voltage furnished by the voltage generator to the determined voltage level as a result of a specified input.” The Court holds that the Causing-a-Change-in-Voltage Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION H
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposal to limit a voltage source to a “power supply configured to provide one of a plurality of distinct voltage levels specified by an input.” The Court holds that the term “voltage source” has is plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION G
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s “external” construction for “clock frequency source” and “clock generator.”
CONSTRUCTION F
AMAZON SEEMS TO WIN THIS ONE
Ultimately, the counter of the claims does not necessarily count to a predetermined time.
CONSTRUCTION E
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposal to limit the terms to “the present frequency and voltage of operation of the processor, the temperature of operation of the processor, or the amount of time the processor spends in one of what may be a number of idle states” and to necessarily exclude “instructions to be executed by the processor.” The Court hereby holds that the Operating-Conditions terms have their plain and ordinary meanings without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION C
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposals to limit the claims to require stopping the core clock in order to stop execution of instructions and to require that the execution and clock are stopped for all frequency changes.
CONSTRUCTION B
The Court rejects Defendant’s proposed construction,
CONSTRUCTION A
THIS ONE WAS A TIE
The issue in dispute distills to whether the Court should construe “multi-core processor.” Given that “multi-core processor” is not a term in the Asserted Patents, the Court declines at this stage to rule on whether any claim reads on a multi-core processor.
check fan,
here is what a claim construction brief in East Texas Consists of
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS 4-5. Claim Construction Briefs.
(a) Not later than 45 days after serving and filing the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, the party claiming patent infringement shall serve and file an opening brief and any evidence supporting its claim construction. All asserted patents shall be attached as exhibits to the opening claim construction brief in searchable PDF form.
(b) Not later than 14 days after service upon it of an opening brief, each opposing party shall serve and file its responsive brief and supporting evidence.
(c) Not later than 7 days after service upon it of a responsive brief, the party claiming patent infringement shall serve and file any reply brief and any evidence directly rebutting the supporting evidence contained in an opposing party’s response.
(d) At least 10 days before the Claim Construction Hearing held pursuant to P.R. 4-6, the parties shall jointly file a claim construction chart.
(1) Said chart shall have a column listing complete language of disputed claims with disputed terms in bold type and separate columns for each party’s proposed construction of each disputed term. The chart shall also include a fourth column entitled "Court’s Construction" and otherwise left blank. Additionally, the chart shall also direct the Court’s attention to the patent and claim number(s) where the disputed term(s) appear(s).
(2) The parties may also include constructions for claim terms to which they have agreed. If the parties choose to include agreed constructions, each party’s proposed construction columns shall state "[AGREED]" and the agreed construction shall be inserted in the "Court’s Construction" column.
(3) The purpose of this claim construction chart is to assist the Court and the parties in tracking and resolving disputed terms. Accordingly, aside from the requirements set forth in this rule, the parties are afforded substantial latitude in the chart’s format so that they may fashion a chart that most clearly and efficiently outlines the disputed terms and proposed constructions. Appendices to the Court’s prior published and unpublished claim construction opinions may provide helpful guidelines for parties fashioning claim construction charts.
(e) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the page limitations governing dispositive motions pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(a) shall apply to claim construction briefing.
het trendtrade..calling the 330k shares today a "rinse" and not a few more guys selling than buying with market makers doing what they do is silly...like I said trend...it will be quiet till august unless there is a SETTLEMENT but knowing who has the shares you speak of IN THE "RINSE"...there is no way they will sell near term.....where your basic due diligence ends is where the real story begins...
cache,
its a good strategy...to me good is coming...we cant control when..so time to relax as you say
for risk reward ratio with the number of cases settled in q2 ALREADY which will be on the August 10q, and the triple and homerun potential on other cases...with apple needing 60 days (2 30 day extensions) to initially respond and with QPRC killing amazon in the markman hearing with mediation coming before june 13th (love to see date in calendar soon)...my opinion this stock is so worth it...but smart buyers will wait for sellers and hopefully that means smart buyers are here.....which will support the stock outside of sloppy sellers the market makers scoop up their shares before flipping to a buyer at a profit...
worst case with no new news on larger cases its august before we can get the 10q and see what we made...assume we will file new suits and move forward with cxt cases also.....
hoping for some early cxt settlements therefore keeping legal fees in our pockets as additional profits..would love to see apple blink again...and see amazon realize fighting is futile as qprc not going anywhere and the price to settle goes up everyday...
agree cache,
something is brewing....
350k shares were offered at .0327...
got eaten up...gobble gobble....quiet buyers....
Agreed Cache,
Its like there are very smart and disciplined buyers lurking, making sure not to move the price up while trying to accumulate organically from sellers that show their hand first , waiting and picking up any shares they can while trying very hard to keep the price where it is....
I wish the buyers here were as sloppy as some of the sellers we have seen here the past 2 months...ha
trendtrade,
Im not the only one that sees you posting crap every week yet moving your goalposts knowing no one will go fact check you as you miss multiple predictions and windows over the last few months.....
cache,
I was on the road yest and when I checked in the evening it had last trade on investorhub as "closed" and it said 10k...so my bad if I was going on incorrect info...200k shares is significant but that is not what investorhub showed me last night as I checked quickly...and all I knew was I saw it at .029 and wanted to see where it closed and what was last trade so I took a peek..thanks for the correct info..it does and would have changed my post..
not all sellers are bid whackers , agreed, but they are the only ones I care about...no warning on price for today as on this volume it can go to whichever side of the ledger is still here...if I was the company I wouldn't be releasing much today or Tuesday as it wont get seen with everyone in vaca mode and would waste some time and money...tough for either a smart buyer or seller to do any meaningful work today without both sides being there of course...
PRETEND YOU ARE THE AMAZON CASE MEDIATOR BELOW
I SUMMARIZED THE MARKMAN BELOW: WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST TO AMAZON AS A MEDIATOR??? MEDIATION WILL START ON OR BEFORE JUNE 13TH
HERE IS THE MARKMAN HEARING CONSTRUCTION CLAIM RESULTS:
QPRC went 11-1-1 IN THE CONSTRUCTIONS I COULD SEE
CONSTRUCTION M
Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for including the “is not capable of functioning” or “can not function.” The Court holds that the “Is Not Capable of Functioning”and “Can Not Function” Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION L
Accordingly, Defendant has failed to prove that any claim is indefinite for including “level of permitted power.” The Court hereby holds that the term “level of permitted power” has its plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION K
Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for inclusion of the term “safe level.” The Court hereby construes “safe level” to mean “maximum operable temperature.”
CONSTRUCTION J
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that for a claim including functional language to be definite, the functional language must be supported by descriptions of algorithms for how the function is performed. While this may be true when 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies, Defendant provides no legal support for this as a rule separate from § 112, ¶ 6 and does not directly argue that § 112, ¶ 6 applies to the Determining Terms. Thus, whether the “determining” language is supported by the written description is determined under the enablement or written-description statutory requirements, it is not an issue of claim construction.
Accordingly, the Court holds that Defendant has not proven any claim indefinite by reason of including “determining” in the claim language and holds that the Determining Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION I
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s request to read in the limitations of “voltage generator changes the voltage furnished by the voltage generator to the determined voltage level as a result of a specified input.” The Court holds that the Causing-a-Change-in-Voltage Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION H
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposal to limit a voltage source to a “power supply configured to provide one of a plurality of distinct voltage levels specified by an input.” The Court holds that the term “voltage source” has is plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION G
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s “external” construction for “clock frequency source” and “clock generator.”
CONSTRUCTION F
AMAZON SEEMS TO WIN THIS ONE
Ultimately, the counter of the claims does not necessarily count to a predetermined time.
CONSTRUCTION E
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposal to limit the terms to “the present frequency and voltage of operation of the processor, the temperature of operation of the processor, or the amount of time the processor spends in one of what may be a number of idle states” and to necessarily exclude “instructions to be executed by the processor.” The Court hereby holds that the Operating-Conditions terms have their plain and ordinary meanings without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION C
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposals to limit the claims to require stopping the core clock in order to stop execution of instructions and to require that the execution and clock are stopped for all frequency changes.
CONSTRUCTION B
The Court rejects Defendant’s proposed construction,
CONSTRUCTION A
THIS ONE WAS A TIE
The issue in dispute distills to whether the Court should construe “multi-core processor.” Given that “multi-core processor” is not a term in the Asserted Patents, the Court declines at this stage to rule on whether any claim reads on a multi-core processor.
BIG DEAL/its a head fake....someone spent 30 bucks at the close to buy the stock at the ask and get it marked at .033 for end of day knowing Investorhub uses LAST TRADE TO MARK POSITIONS......I don't think a shareholder long the stock should feel great when they are marking the price at LAST price and that is the ask....as you cant sell there so why be artificially happy...but it doesn't matter if u aren't selling...
shareholders should value their stock where they can sell it when you want to get out and thas the BID....longs should mark their positions at the bid and shorts the ask...then u always know worst case...keeps things real...if u don't and think if you have 100k shares and ur stock is worth $3300 right now when if u sold it you would get out at .028 and get $2800, then u are not being honest or smart......
end of the day the good news is potentially coming..but regardless where the stock goes on any given day, if it isn't on real volume its just the market makers doing their money making thing cause its OTC and they can...
.holiday weekend guys..volume gets lower as we get closer to it..not rocket science...and the stock could move down if its the buyers who decided to go away on Wednesday night to the beach...same things the other way..
THE STORY OF QPRC HASNT CHANGED...THATS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW..AMAZON, APPLE AND CXT PORTFOLIO can each BREAK US OUT...THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS I CARE ABOUT DAY TO DAY...IF THERE IS NO NEWS in those lawsuits THEN and no real volume sellers than the DAY TO DAY PRICE MOVEMENT DOESNT MATTER..
trendtrade changes his story every 2 weeks depending where the stock is at the time...
he knows nothing and is guessing based on a amateurish reading of the 10q...every share being sold is getting accumulated..but no one can help sloppy sellers...and that's all this is..
alstocks,
The mediation as per the minutes from the markman hearing say within 30 days of the judges comments (claim construction opinion) which came out may 13th, not 30 days from the date of the hearing which was May 2nd...
I think some people misinterpreted the mediation being 30 days from the meeting....but it does need to be 30 days from the judges construction comments...so prob will be scheduled within the next 3 weeks..if you look at the link for the case the judge this week required them to pay they technical advisor which was just done by Amazon but there is no date for the mediation yet...but should be on or before June 13th..
masterblastr,
when this stuff gets pushed a few pages back I update them and repost with any new info...new people show up every day...just keeping things current..been long for a long time..definitely not getting out now with what we have potentially on tap...good luck to u..
WHY THE AMAZON MARKMAN RESULTS ARE IMPORTANT? READ!
AFTER YOU READ THIS POST PLEASE READ THE POST TITLE MARKMAN HEARING DATES AND SEE WHEN QPRC'S MARKMAN HEARINGS ARE AND REALIZE WHAT ELSE COULD HAPPEN... SEMCON IP PORTFOLIO, CXT PORTFOLIO...MARKMANS ALL OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS...BUT AMAZON'S IS DONE AND QPRC CRUSHED IT..
A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".[1]
Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.[3][4]
Markman hearings are important, because the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, because the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole.
Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection.[5]
The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent. Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, or other unwritten sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence.
HERE IS HOW WE CRUSHED AMAZON
I SUMMARIZED THE MARKMAN BELOW:
QPRC went 11-1-1 IN THE CONSTRUCTIONS I COULD SEE
.SOMEONE HAS TO HEAR ABOUT THIS AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY IMHO..
CONSTRUCTION M
Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for including the “is not capable of functioning” or “can not function.” The Court holds that the “Is Not Capable of Functioning”and “Can Not Function” Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION L
Accordingly, Defendant has failed to prove that any claim is indefinite for including “level of permitted power.” The Court hereby holds that the term “level of permitted power” has its plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION K
Accordingly, Defendant has not proven any claim is indefinite for inclusion of the term “safe level.” The Court hereby construes “safe level” to mean “maximum operable temperature.”
CONSTRUCTION J
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that for a claim including functional language to be definite, the functional language must be supported by descriptions of algorithms for how the function is performed. While this may be true when 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies, Defendant provides no legal support for this as a rule separate from § 112, ¶ 6 and does not directly argue that § 112, ¶ 6 applies to the Determining Terms. Thus, whether the “determining” language is supported by the written description is determined under the enablement or written-description statutory requirements, it is not an issue of claim construction.
Accordingly, the Court holds that Defendant has not proven any claim indefinite by reason of including “determining” in the claim language and holds that the Determining Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION I
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s request to read in the limitations of “voltage generator changes the voltage furnished by the voltage generator to the determined voltage level as a result of a specified input.” The Court holds that the Causing-a-Change-in-Voltage Terms have their plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION H
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposal to limit a voltage source to a “power supply configured to provide one of a plurality of distinct voltage levels specified by an input.” The Court holds that the term “voltage source” has is plain and ordinary meaning without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION G
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s “external” construction for “clock frequency source” and “clock generator.”
CONSTRUCTION F
AMAZON SEEMS TO WIN THIS ONE
Ultimately, the counter of the claims does not necessarily count to a predetermined time.
CONSTRUCTION E
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposal to limit the terms to “the present frequency and voltage of operation of the processor, the temperature of operation of the processor, or the amount of time the processor spends in one of what may be a number of idle states” and to necessarily exclude “instructions to be executed by the processor.” The Court hereby holds that the Operating-Conditions terms have their plain and ordinary meanings without the need for further construction.
CONSTRUCTION C
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s proposals to limit the claims to require stopping the core clock in order to stop execution of instructions and to require that the execution and clock are stopped for all frequency changes.
CONSTRUCTION B
The Court rejects Defendant’s proposed construction,
CONSTRUCTION A
THIS ONE WAS A TIE
The issue in dispute distills to whether the Court should construe “multi-core processor.” Given that “multi-core processor” is not a term in the Asserted Patents, the Court declines at this stage to rule on whether any claim reads on a multi-core processor.
GREAT NEWS ON CXT Patents
THIS IS A REPOST FROM MY ORIGINAL 5/14 POST
IN READING THE LINK FROM JMMATTHEWS IT CLEARLY SAYS THIS..WHICH MEANS TO ME THAT CXT WILL SYSTEMATICALLY WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH NUMEROUS COURT WINS DUE TO THE PRECEDENCE THAT HAS BEEN SET IN STONE BY PAST RESULTS..AND THEY HAVE TARGETED SMALLER COMANIES (AND WON EVERY CASE) TO GET PRECEDENT SET, THEN ONCE THE HARD WORK IS DONE, WE GO AFTER EVERYONE INCLUDING THE BIG BOYS....
THE DOCUMENT SAYS THIS IMPORTANT FACT:
The Patents-in-Suit are presumed to be valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and while many have tried to invalidate them, none has succeeded. In a recent action styled CXT Systems, Inc. v. Academy, Ltd., d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors, Case No. 2:18-cv-00171-RWS-RSP (Lead Case), eight different sets of defendants filed or joined in 12(b)(6) motions alleging lack of eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. A Report and Recommendation stated “The Court concludes that the claimed invention [of the ’703, ’234 and ’661 Patents] is not directed to an abstract idea under step 1 as it is directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of computing devices." Ultimately, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied all the 12(b)(6) motions. Recognizing the validity of these patents, industry leaders have instead chosen to license them.
APPLE-2nd 30 DAY EXTENSION SINCE THIS BEGAN ON APRIL 12TH
Apple just asked for their 2nd 30 day extension and the case just started....IMHO if it was cut and dry and they felt it was easy, it wouldn't take more than 30 days to figure out the plan..
Apple Lawsuit Reuters Article:
https://www.reuters.com/article/ip-patent-apple/apple-hit-with-east-texas-patent-case-over-iphone-payments-technology-idUSL1N21U1Z3
Follow the case here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14925527/quest-nettech-corporation-v-apple-inc/
WHY QPRC FILING THE SUIT WHEN THEY DID IN EAST TEXAS WAS MASTERFUL:
APPLE is at a known disadvantage fighting Patent Suits in EAST TEXAS....QPRC filed there on the last day possible before Apple closed their remaining locations in the jurisdiction to specifically be able to fight APPLE IN East Texas. Its David versus Goliath but we have waited over 10 years for someone to catch up to this WYNN patent we have held until someone infringed on it.
QPRC got in their lawsuit right before APPLE closed their locations in East Texas which would have not allowed them to go after them in that Jurisdiction past Friday April 12th. The court set the APRIL 12th as the deadline since APPLE closed their remaining 2 East Texas locations. QPRC came in UNDER the deadline and APPLE knows they are at a disadvantage in EAST TEXAS.
East Texas was known as a "PATENT FRIENDLY" jurisdiction. Apple has not fared well in East Texas Cases. This was a very smart move by QPRC to file suit while APPLE still had East Texas locations.
See some articles (some may need sign in)
https://www.law360.com/technology/articles/1149154/on-its-way-out-of-east-texas-apple-hit-with-patent-suit
The Lawsuit is international news MACLIFE-Germany :
https://www.maclife.de/news/apple-pay-apple-faengt-sich-klage-wegen-patentverletzung-100113465.html
QPRC BEAT THEM TO THE PUNCH AS APRIL 12TH WAS THE LAST DAY FOR A CASE TO BE BROUGHT IN EAST TEXAS
QPRC IS ASKING APPLE TO PAY TRIPLE FOR WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
THE REASON IS>>>>>>>>
QPRC HELD THIS PATENT YEARS AGO AND SHOPPED IT TO APPLE TO SEE IF THEY WANTED TO LICENSE IT. APPLE PASSED. BUT THEY PASSED BECAUSE WHEN THEY SAW IT, APPLE DIDNT YET HAVE APPLE PAY, NOT WAS A CREDIT CARD ON APPLES RADAR. THE QPRC/WYNN PATENT WAS WAY AHEAD OF ITS TIME...BUT WHAT IT DOES MEAN IS THAT WHEN APPLE DID MOVE FORWARD YEARS LATER, THEY KNEW THE QPRC PATENT EXISTED...THEREFORE THEY INFRINGED ON THE PATENT WILLFULLY AND QPRC CAN ASK FOR TREBLE DAMAGES....
https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2019/04/late-yesterday-apple-was-sued-for-patent-infringement-relating-to-apple-pay-services-on-idevices.html
Here are a few articles on how bad Apple has done against other suits that came from East Texas:
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2016/10/03/apple-loses-another-patent-case-east-texas-facetime-technology
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/26/apple-optis-wireless-lte-patent-lawsuit/
That Friday was the day it ended for APPLE>..QPRC came in under the deadline......GO QPRC
http://macdailynews.com/2019/02/22/apple-plans-to-close-all-retail-stores-in-eastern-district-of-texas-in-fight-against-patent-trolls/
Apple Pay statistics and other stuff:
as of 8/2019 over 253 million use apple pay world wide..check other stats here
https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/apple-pay-statistics-facts/
Apple is frequently targeted by companies looking to enforce patents. That’s presumably because of Apple’s size, which makes a possible win against Apple in court very valuable. The East District of Texas is a favored location for patent trials on account of their tendency to award large sums in damages.
Decades ago, the Eastern District of Texas instituted rules designed to speed up patent lawsuits. There are restrictions on the amount of paperwork that can be filed, and even limits on how long lawyers can speak in court. These rules make it much quicker and cheaper for a small company to bring a patent infringement lawsuit against a larger one.
Other stocks have exploded once the word got out of their lawsuits viability against apple...
imho, id be a little patient...with low volume, market makers can make it seem like anything is basically happening...patience is a virtue
See from the 10k here
Universal Financial Data System
The invention describes a universal financial data system which allows its holder to use the device to access one or more accounts stored in the memory of the device as a cash payment substitute as well as to keep track of financial and transaction records and data, such as transaction receipts, in a highly portable package, such as a cellular device (the “Financial Data Portfolio”). The inventive universal data system is capable of supporting multiple accounts of various types, including but not limited to credit card accounts, checking/debit accounts, and loyalty accounts. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Wynn Technologies Inc., acquired US Patent No. 5,859,419, from the owner, Sol Wynn. In January 2001, we filed a reissue application for the patent, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued patent RE38,137. This reissued patent, which contains 35 separate claims, replaces the original patent, which had seven claims. In February 2011, we entered into a new agreement with Sol Li (formerly Sol Wynn), pursuant to which we issued to Mr. Li a 35% interest in Wynn Technologies and warrants to purchase up to 5,000,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.001 per share, the warrants expired unexercised. We also agreed that Mr. Li would receive 40% of the net licensing revenues generated by Wynn Technologies with respect to this patent, which is the only patent owned by Wynn Technologies. On December 17, 2018, Wynn Technologies, Inc. granted an exclusive license to the Financial Data Portfolio, including the right to enforce, to our wholly owned subsidiary, Quest NetTech. Under the agreement, Quest NetTech receives 100% of the net proceeds, as defined by the agreement.
This stock has huge potential.. The 10k showed huge near term and long perm potential with some major catalysts that could do great things for the stock..do your own work..this is my opinion
market makers will play with this stock if low volume ...don't get fooled.. this is a sleeper...the company isn't pumping this which can easily be seen....more good things are coming.....don't listen to the guys who want to get in lower
many people here have been patient , we all deserve a pay off...god bless and good luck to ALL
FELT LIKE A LONG MONTH THIS WEEK..LOL
GOOD THINGS COMING...IMHO...WEAK HANDS SOMETIMES MEANS A DROP IN PRICE DURING THE WEEK OR 2 AFTER THE 10Q WHILE WE BUILD A SOLID FOUNDATION...WE KNOW WE HAVE MULTIPLE SETTLEMENTS IN OUR POCKET ALREADY.....HOPEFULLY SOON THE WORD WILL GET OUT WHEN ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS THAT COULD DROP ANY DAY HAPPENS AND WE WONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT QUIET WEEKS LIKE THIS...ITS A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE WE ARE NOTICED BY THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY...THEN ITS NO LOOKING BACK
OBmama regarding CXT,
My guess is with CXT QPRC decided to go after smaller companies and win some suits AND SET PRECEDENCE IN THE COURTS with some "low hanging fruit" before going after the much bigger guys that have more bullets in their gun (MONEY TO FIGHT)....its a smart strategy if so...and seems like the plan is moving along fine and it seems like the list of the companies that infringe on it are ENDLESS
trendtrade,
stop making stuff up...its normal volume and there are no sellers that got special stock that want to sell here...but other than a settlement announcement there is nothing scheduled before the august 10q..which already has more than 5 settlements in it...just sloppy noob retail sellers that don't know why they are here in the first place..good riddance..
ALSTOCKS..HE IS POSTING THE NEWS ON TWITTER ALREADY...JUST NOT DOING IT WELL...UR ARGUMENT IS JUST SILLY AND YOU REACHING FAR TO JUSTIFY SOMETHING YOU SIMPLY CANT.......IM SAYING IF HE IS GONNA POST IT DO IT EFFICIENTLY...
No its simple..tweets get read by more people when tagged....if you are a company putting out news with no tags then only people looking up @qprc will see the news..if you tag more popular searches in your posts then others searching those things will possibly see and read your tweet...last I looked Apple and Amazon were more a little more popular than QPRC..as are ASUS and JC Penny and Hallmark etc/./..end of my story here...
JMM maybe it was...but when I said the CEO of the company should do it, I am looked at like I am an enemy of the state...all im saying....all I have been sayin...
cache..
u can always block me..no offense taken
or just open your mind and maybe you would learn something every once in a while......
i correct dates that are wrong, and other stuff cause i pay attention...u take it personal...not my concern..we all make mistakes..my posts today arent against anyone here..if u think he is using twitter correctly...then please state it...if he isnt, which he isnt then im correct...whats the big deal...
jmm,
They are def polite, but just obtuse, like they cant look at anything if it doesn't start with QPRC and end with rainbows and unicorns...
JMM,
Agreed and all im saying is if in his titles of the semcon releases he puts $AMZN next to the word AMAZON and $APPL next to the word APPLE for the quest nettech case tweets going forward, he would prob have more NEW people look at his tweets in one day than he does in a few weeks....
none of you get the point...I post as much positive self created due diligence here than anyone...but u say 1 thing criticizing ONE thing and you get crap from people with nothing better to do not even knowing what they are arguing for or against or how wrong they are...
I think he is doing more than fine..
but getting the great things he is doing out in the news efficiently is just as important....and it isn't like Im arguing he should join twitter...im saying he he uses it ever day so he should use it like other great companies do or he should sent up smoke signals from RYE as he has the same opportunity to be seen
JMM..it doesn't mean he cant do it better....u guys are blind cause u are afraid to criticize the company.....he has a Ferrari and never lets it go faster than 50 miles an hour..that is the best analogy of how qprc utilizes twitter..
cache,but none of us need to listen to eachother..why do we? cause the information and input from a group can be more effective than any one person..
whether JON wants to be "schooled" or not....he is bad at twitter and its marketing uses to maximize viewing of the news... and that is his main news release source currently...he, you or anyone else who knows the potential of twitter and how to use it effectively can see he is a noob when it comes to twitter...doesn't make him a bad, lazy or anything other than simply being not good at it...and if u think the company spending 10k to travel to a conference for 3 to 5 days in vegas to see mabye 10 one on one investors in a room, is more effective than a solid smart social media presence (so those investors you met can follow the company also) then you also don't really know about SEO or how to use twitter effectively.
alstocks,
with all he is doing right he is putting out news and no one is seeing it.....we know the potential...he isn't informing any target audience that doesn't own the stock already..instead of being defensive and focusing on what he is doing right, helping the company is focusing on the correctable things and this is a big one....take the blinders off as its the biggest fault of this board.....and focus on making things better...
he definitely is doing a good job....look at all he has done..then look at the stock price and look at his tweets versus others ans see what he IS NOT doing..that's all buddy...I like what Jon is doing..what does that have to do with him doing this wrong and your reply.....
alstocks and JON SCAHILL PLEASE READ,
Scahill may be a VERY smart dude but he doesn't seem to be too social media savvy.....he has 250 followers ON TWITTER and it probably includes this whole investorshub board meaning 100 people outside this board look at his tweets, that number includes his mom, cousins and others who aren't going to buy the stock right now..lol...
JON DOESNT DO THE BASIC marketing/SEO STUFF IN A WAY TO HAVE HIS NEWS BE SEEN..HE IS JUST SAVY ENOUGH TO TWEET BUT NOT SAVVY ENOUGHTO KNOW HOW TO DO ANYTHING BUT TYPE AND SEND...…I GET IT BUT AN EFFICIENT CEO HAS TO BE ABLE TO GET HELP/DELEGATE WHERE IT IS NEEDED..BEING A ONE MAN BAND IS VALIANT BUT NOT AN ATTRIBUTE THAT SHOULD BE APPLAUDED IF IT HURTS THE COMPANY IN ITS ACTION..JON'S BROTHER HAS A RESUME WHICH MAKES HIM OUT TO BE A IT WIZARD, HE IS ALSO ON THE BOARD AND HE GOT SOME STOCK ALREADY SO IT BOGGLES MY MIND WHY THIS ISNT BEING DONE WELL ..IT IS DEFINITELY NEEDED HERE...
HE DOESNT TAG POPULAR STOCKS LIKE AMAZON, APPLE OR ANY OTHER COMPANIES ON HIS TWEETS NOR DOES HE USE ANY KEY WORDS TO GET HIS TWEETS, OR ANYTHING ELSE LOOKED AT BY ANYONE IF THEY ARENT SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR QPRC...THATS JUST INEXPERIENCE AND NOT BEING MARKETING SMART...SO PLEASE DONT SAY WHAT HE IS DOING IS SMART IF HE ISNT BEING EFFICIENT....ITS NOT HIS FAULT AND HE WEARS A LOT OF HATS, BUT THIS HAT HE IS DOING HIMSELF BUT ALSO DOING WRONG IS THE 2ND MOST IMPORTANT JOB IN THE COMPANY RIGHT NOW , WHICH IS GETTING NEWS YOU WANT OUT , OUT...TELLING THE SAME 250 PEOPLE ABOUT QPRC NEWS ISNT WHAT QPRC SHOULD BE DOING, FINDING A WAY TO GET THAT FOLLOWER NUMBER TO 10K BY YEAR END IS.....AND I DONT SEE JON DOING THE BASICS HERE...IF U DONT HAVE FOLLOWERS AND DONT TAG THINGS THAT HAVE FOLLOWERS, HOW DO YOU EXPECT FOR NEW PEOPLE TO SEE THE NEWS, POSSIBLY RETWEET AND GET THE WORD OUT...???
JON S. ..IM NOT FAR FROM RYE IF U WANT ME TO COME BY FOR A FREE HAND....