I don't know. It would have required a deep dig for sure--of not only insiders but key employees as well. The whole damn thing was such a clandestine operation with some powerful forces working against us. Any politicking which might have or could have occurred at the PTAB, CFAC, or District Court would have been child's play compared to what was apparently going on.

I wondered that too. I guess we shouldn't be too hard on him or ourselves for the defeat, since it was over before it began.

Wow! And we wondered why the court rulings just didn't seem to make sense. We had a 0.0% chance of winning the case.

Makes you wonder if S&G had truly done their DD--beyond the technology--would they have even taken the case? I'd bet no.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/do-these-documents-prove-call-duty-government-psyop

They've done their homework, for sure.

The stock will be bought or sold based on that factor alone.

Activision CEO staying on, so nothing would likely change with respect to the lawsuit. Doubtful that Microsoft will keep him around and will let him go. That's my opinion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/microsoft-is-already-making-bad-decisions-with-activision-blizzard/amp/

This creates an interesting twist. When the sale goes through, it's a lawsuit on hold against Microsoft in TX and an active lawsuit against Microsoft in MA.

What the hell else do you want him to do? It's in the hands of the attorneys and he already said in the last press release he's hoping for or expecting a court decision early next year.

Right, and the more people that do it without penalty, the more trivial the illegal activity becomes, or so it seems.

Retrials at the expense of taxpayers are the only repercussions. There are no penalties for judges who preside over cases in which they have a conflict of interest. According to the article I posted a few days ago, it's illegal. You might as well use quotes around "illegal" nowadays, especially when it involves the ruling class.

Can Worlds' legal team demand financial disclosure from the judge? That would be an interesting inquiry.

Checking for conflict of interest should be standard operating procedure for all these cases. How 'bout checking into financial disclosures for this case? Makes me wonder that much more since the 101 ruling.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/10/11/131_federal_judges_didnt_disclose_their_interests_and_cases_may_be_reheard_798155.html?mc_cid=02678a146d&mc_eid=891d8cfdc0

So where's S&G now? They're not even included as part of Worlds' counsel in this article. Maybe they're only involved in the trial at the District Court level?

We'll see if this EO includes patent protections, and whether or not the anti big tech sentiment spills over into the courts.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/09/biden-to-sign-executive-order-aimed-at-cracking-down-on-big-tech-business-practices.html

Yes, I re-read that now and remember. Great points in there and I hope more will provide their views and analysis on the ruling.

I must say... I'm surprised we haven't had more commentary on here related to the judge's 101 decision. I'm not a legal beagle, but I'd be interested in reading the opinions of those capable of rendering a legal analysis of Casper's 101 rulings.

Too bad we don't have access to the attorneys' appeal submission/rebuttal.

I am not buying RLBD, but I would welcome free shares indirectly as a holder of WDDD stock. Might as well be cryptocurrency. Buy something if there's a little cash available and place it in WDDD's coffers. Anything to increase value or potential value here.

Worlds may acquire 1% of O/S of RLBD in October. My guess is that L4BC is referencing that as reason to be glad for any delays. In other words, he may feel we'll extract great value from 1% ownership of RLBD prior to a decision by CAFC. All speculative on my part of course, as I can't possibly know why he made that statement.

Frankly, I don't give a rip at this point, and doubtful others do as well, what would create value here--whether a favorable court decision or through acquiring RLBD shares. I got way overextended here and I'd be happy to simply break even right now.

Yeah, exactly. It's as though a 101 filing and subsequent ruling has the ability to completely eliminate due process.

I read on this board that we are entitled to an appeal after it's filed--unlike the Supreme Court, which decides whether or not to hear a case. Anyone know what's correct?

It was posted that same day, if I recall. I sure wish we could access the appeal itself to find out where and why the attorneys think Casper went wrong with the 101 decision.

What?? The appeal was filed at the end of May.


1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WORLDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
and ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-10576 (DJC)
PLAINTIFF WORLDS, INC’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Worlds, Inc. hereby appeals to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Judgment entered by the Court on April 30,
2021 (Dkt. # 359), the Court’s Memorandum and Order of the same date (Dkt. # 358), the
Electronic Order entered by the Court on March 4, 2021 (Dkt. # 345), the Court’s Memorandum
and Order on claim construction, entered on June 26, 2015 (Dkt. # 153), the Court’s
Memorandum and Order entered on March 13, 2014 (Dkt. # 124), and all other interlocutory
orders entered in this action.
Dated: May 28, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Wayne M. Helge
Wayne M. Helge (pro hac vice)
whelge@dbjg.com
Aldo Noto (pro hac vice)
anoto@dbjg.com
Alan A.Wright (pro hac vice)
awright@dbjg.com
Gregory A. Krauss (pro hac vice)
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 366 Filed 05/28/21 Page 1 of 32
GKrauss@dbjg.com
James T. Wilson (pro hac vice)
jwilson@dbjg.com
Donald L. Jackson (pro hac vice)
djackson@dbjg.com
Walter D. Davis, Jr. (pro hac vice)
wdavis@dbjg.com
DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
GOWDEY, LLP
8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
McLean, VA 22102
T: (571) 765-7700
Max L. Tribble (pro hac vice)
mtribble@susmangodfrey.com
Chanler Langham (pro hac vice)
clangham@susmangodfrey.com
Ryan Caughey (pro hac vice)
rcaughey@susmangodfrey.com
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002
T: (713) 651-9366
Joel R. Leeman (BBO # 292070)
jleeman@sunsteinlaw.com
SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY &
TIMBERS
125 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110-1618
T: (617) 443-9292
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
WORLDS, INC.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 366 Filed 05/28/21 Page 2 of 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF systems will be sent electronically
to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing on the above date.
/s/ Wayne M. Helge
Wayne M. Helge
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 366 Filed 05/28/21 Page 3 of

Bigger than the patents? The patents are why we're here.

Whaddya got for us? RLBD with 2.6 Billion shares O/S?

1:50 would get them to approx. 50MM shares O/S and $5.00/share.

Yes, billions... unfortunately. Better than nothing. If it runs to $1.00, that's $26 Million in holdings for WDDD, which would equate to a share price of just under $0.50.

https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/real-brands-pk-RLBD/stock-news/85450195/securities-registration-section-12g-10-12g

Page F-14

NOTE 7. CONVERTIBLE NOTES PAYABLE -RELATED PARTY

The Company has issued a convertible note payable related party in the amount of $200,000. The convertible note has a 7% annual interest rate and matures on October 15, 2021. Interest and principal are payable at maturity. The note can be converted at any time and either all or part of the amount due into equity at a price of $0.008139 per share. If converted into common stock, the related party would own 1% of Company based upon current number of shares outstanding. The related party holding the convertible note is Worlds Inc. Messrs. Kidrin, Toboroff and Christos are Directors of Worlds Inc. and Mr. Kidrin is the CEO and Mr. Ryan is the CFO of Worlds Inc.

As of December 31, 2020, the Company incurred $17,267 in interest expense on the note.

Read today's RLBD filing.

Looks like 1% of outstanding shares of RLBD if a warrant converts sometime in October. That'll be roughly 26,000,000 shares.

Yes, I agree to a certain point. However, people take a gamble with a speculative stock. That should be the mindset going into a play like this. Some or many are willing to risk a lot on something like a 101 decision, knowing that it's a feast or famine outcome. Research doesn't help much with a crap shoot.

"Nothing personal. It just surprised me that folks invest $$ in things they don't understand. That is a good way to lose $$."

What's understanding have to do with a penny stock? A very speculative one at that. I'd venture to say that most here understood the inherent risks but took a chance for a potential big payout. If anyone throwing money at this thought their money was safe and secure, they should first educate themselves on stock market investing.

I was implying that if her decision was politically motivated, then it may not be a sound one. At least, I'm hoping that's how the CAFC panel would view her decision. They can have a 101 opinion on this as well, right?

And by the way, I'm a legal layman. I'm trying to understand how the system works... probably like most here, and with more questions than answers. So, when you address someone with a statement such as, "If you have any understanding of ...", know that I or we may not have a lot of understanding because we don't have any experience in the courts and legal system. We're learning as we go along in the process.

"The 101 issue was solely before Casper to decide. It was not decided by CAFC or PTAB. When the decision was delayed and delayed it became clear it was political and related to the election."

Then that is all the more reason to appeal the decision. If it's political, chances are she used shoddy arguments to back up her opinion, and that needs to be examined closely by a panel of judges.

By the way, we saw the filing of the appeal, but where are the documents from the attorneys scrutinizing the 101 decision? In other words, "Here's why we're appealing..." Or, aren't they required to make that public? I'd like to see how they picked apart Casper's decisions and case law.

He likely blocked you around the holidays. Just a feeling from the discussions taking place at the time.

Not what I wanted to hear, but it's what I thought. So, if they decide to hear the case, when will we know that--approximately? If it's a "yes," then I think we will see less pain reflected in the share price.

Is Worlds entitled to an appeal or not? I asked this question a while back. The person who wrote the reply below says yes, but recent posts suggest CAFC can choose not to hear an appeal. Anyone?

Post #42371: "As long as preserve issues for appeal and timely file notice, appeal is matter of right. CAFC not choose to hear or not hear. Oral arguments probably about nine months or so after file appeal."

Are you able to get a sense of the CEO's and the board's views on the future CAFC decision? We know judicial activism is a potential factor, unfortunately, but from a strictly legal argument, where do they sit?

Did Casper have any valid points in her prior art arguments?

I'm not assuming you know, but you seem to "know somebody who knows somebody."

From your previous post, adding value here in just about any way would be very welcomed by us all, I'm sure.

I'm sure he's exercised a great deal of prudence related to finances. However, take a look at the huge purchase of BTC by Musk last quarter. Almost 25% of their profits were from BTC gains. Watch and see what those shareholders do in the event that BTC continues in a downward spiral. Class action? I'm not suggesting a crypto purchase by Worlds is the right thing to do, but just thinking about what could have been, given the current circumstances here.

Why not sell off some of those 2.4 million
MRMD shares and roll the money into a few cryptos? Imagine if they did that 4-5 years ago with BTC rocketing up. They could be sitting on a pile of cash right now. I think BTC was in the $250-500 range back in 2015. It's all speculative, but something to consider, especially with cryptos taking a big haircut lately.

I'm interested in hearing others' opinions on possible motivations, and I agree that it could have been purely political--to appease her overlords or tptb. Again, I'm not assuming any nefarious reasons behind her decision, but as Joe Biden would say, "Come on, man!"

I sure hope this is the reason. We might have a good shot then:

"...but deliberately wrote a very flawed opinion so later on it could get overturned."

Everything happening in such a short span seems so incredulous--from the stay in the LL case, followed by the horrible 101 ruling, to the curiously timed document released by MS attorneys. So, yes, an investigation would be a phenomenal undertaking! This was briefly mentioned the other day by a couple of posters. It should be done after all suspicious rulings!

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Someone on here the other day alluded to the CAFC granting an appeal, which may not have been guaranteed.

2 years to decide whether or not to hear the case?