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.
it was just on the news streamer today that comes across every 5 min or so
MORE NEWS ON SOLM
Aug 31 - Solomon Technologies Energizes First Instant Solar(TM) PV System
DANBURY, Conn., Aug. 31 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Solomon Technologies, Inc. (Pink Sheets: SOLM - News) announced today that its Technipower subsidiary has installed its first Instant Solar(TM) system at its Danbury, CT headquarters. The pre-assembled, pre-wired system, which is a self contained unit comprising two solar arrays and all the equipment necessary to tie to the power grid, was easily and quickly erected and electrically connected. The Company has a patent pending on the system.
Dan Connors, President of Technipower said, "Our installation demonstrated how easily the system can be placed in service at a customer's site. Instant Solar provides an appealing alternative to solar installers, electrical contractors, building services providers, architects, and energy consultants who are expanding their business into the solar market and want flexibility without complexity. Since our recent announcement and local press coverage, we've had a very positive response from a number of industry channels."
Connors continued, "In being our own customer, this installation has provided us valuable insights in streamlining the sales and installation process to improve the overall value proposition to the end user. We expect to install additional solar units at our Danbury headquarters and at our Reynosa, Mexico facility and to ship the first commercial units during the fourth quarter of this year."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Solomon-Technologies-prnews-1736641653.html?x=0&.v=1
INFO on pre assembled solar pv systems
http://www.technipowersystems.com/instant-solar
NOTE in most states if you are tie to the POWER GRID if you make more power then you use the power co. will pay you for it.
ON BLOONBURGE TV MID AMERICA THINKING ABOUT BUY MORE BYD
YOU CAN GET MORE INFO ON CLOSED END FUNDS HERE http://www.etfconnect.com/select/fundpages/other.asp?MFID=120108
NAV is what the value per share the fund is worth
Closeing share price whar you could buy it at last night
Current distrubution rate is the dividend rate
Premium/Discount IF it is a - it is % under the NAV
+ it is the % over the NAV
YOU MIGHT WANT SMACK TO THIS ONE SOON IMGG
should have FDA approval soon real time instant xray 3D imaging patent no comation portable goes throw doors plugs in 110v CEO talks on IHUB board under deanjanes CC on 8/19/09 next CC about mid sept to get update on FDA process hopes to get it this year or sooner might be a price you guys like $0.04
to check web page to see what it can do and listen to last CC
Imaging3.com promotes the Dominion VI Scanner and the public company via the .com website:
http://www.imaging3.com/
I
SOME OF YOU ASK SMACKERS might want to put VHC on you favorites list going on trial 3/8/10 with microsoft the judge ruled in their favor on the markman ruling
SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VirnetX Holding Corporation (NYSE Amex: VHC) announced today that its president and CEO, Kendall Larsen, will be conducting a conference call on Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 1:00PM EDT, to discuss its current Markman Order in its litigation with Microsoft and the Order's impact on VirnetX's business strategy.
To listen to the call live on your computer, click on the webcast link: http://www.b2i.us/external.asp?b=1944&id=777&from=wc&L=e
Patent Enforcement
Summary of Microsoft Litigation
– On February 15, 2007 VirnetX filed a patent infringement lawsuit
against Microsoft
• Lawsuit involved 3 patents and over 18 claims
• Patent infringement claims extend to eight MSFT products which generate billions
in annual revenues and include Windows Vista, Windows XP, Server 2003, Server
2008 and Office Communicator
NO NEW COURT NEWS LAST ONE 8/19/2009
Virnetx v Microsoft patent infringement Document 247 8/19/09
APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
CORP., § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:07-CV-80 (LED)
Plaintiffs,
JURY TRIAL
V.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND TO AMEND APPENDIX B TO CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION OPINION
Microsoft respectfully moves to clarify and amend the Court's definition of
"virtual private network" in Appendix B to the claim construction order [Docket #246] to include
language from the Court's opinion that "privately" in the VPN construction requires ensuring
"both data security and anonymity."
At claim construction, one of the primary disputes between the parties on the term
"virtual private network" ("VPN") was over whether a VPN requires both anonymity and data
security as in a private network, or simply data security. The Court ruled that a VPN requires
both. See Claim Construction Opinion at 9 ("Accordingly, the Court construes "virtual private
network" as requiring both data security and anonymity."). While the Court resolved the
dispute clearly, the Court implemented this portion of its construction in Appendix B through the
word "privately":
virtual private network: a network of computers which privately
communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure
communication paths between the computers.
Id. at 35 (Appendix B). The word "privately" in this construction is the focal point for what it
means for a virtual private network to provide security on insecure communication paths, and
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 1 of 5
will be the crux of any argument over whether a particular network meets the Court's
requirements for a VPN. However, "privately" is a word that a lay juror may not understand has
the precise meaning given the term by the Court in resolving this dispute between the parties.
Additionally, that term was originally proposed by VimetX as part of its claim construction
position for "VPN," and VimetX has argued that its construction does not require anonymity,
contrary to the Court's construction.
To assist the jury and prevent any confusion at trial, Microsoft proposes adding to
Appendix B the definition of "privately" that the Court set forth in its opinion for the word
"private" in the VPN context. The Court specified that "private' in 'virtual private networks'
means both data security and anonymity." Id. at 8. The Appendix B definition would thus read
(with the new language underlined):
virtual private network: a network of computers which privately
communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure
communication paths between the computers. "Privately" means
ensuring both data security and anonymity.
The Federal Circuit has recently emphasized the necessity of assigning "fixed
meaning" to terms within constructions as part of the process of assigning unambiguous meaning
to the claims. See Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 563 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2009). In Every Penny Counts, the Federal Circuit affiiiiied the district court's claim
construction of the term "excess cash," which required the district court to define a phrase, -sale
price," that had been proposed as part of the "excess cash" construction by the plaintiff. Id.
The Court dismissed the plaintiffs attempt to criticize the district court's clarification of "sale
price," noting that "f the court had adopted [plaintiffs] proposed construction without first
assigning a fixed meaning to this construction, then it would quite clearly have failed to assign a
fixed, unambiguous, legally operative meaning to the claim." Id. (quotation omitted).
2
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 2 of 5
Here, the definition of "virtual private network" in Appendix B should be
clarified and amended to include the fixed meaning of "privately" given to that term by the Court
in the text of its opinion.'
Dated: August 19, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jared Bobrow
Jared Bobrow (Pro Hac Vice)
Lead Attorney
Matthew D. Powers
Paul Ehrlich (Pro Hac Vice)
Thomas B. King (Pro Hac Vice)
L. Okey Onyejekwe Jr. (Pro Hac Vice)
WEIL„GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
650-802-3000 (Telephone)
650-802-3100 (Facsimile)
jared.bobrow@weil.com
paul.ehrlich@weil.com
thomas.king@weil.corn
okey.onyejekwe@weil.corn
Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser (Pro Hac Vice)
Timothy E. DeMasi (Pro Hac Vice)
GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153-0119
2 12-3 10-873 5 (Telephone)
212-310-8007 (Facsimile)
tim.demasi@weil.com
elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
Daniel Booth (SBN: 24055196)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
713-546-5000 (Telephone)
Microsoft does not waive its prior positions on the construction of "virtual private network"
and other claim terms.
3
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 3 of 5
713-224-9511 (Facsimile)
daniel.booth@weil.com
Eric H. Findlay (SBN: 00789886)
FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP
6760 Old Jacksonville Highway, Suite 101
Tyler, TX 75703
903-534-1100 (Telephone)
903-534-1137 (Facsimile)
efindlay@findlaycraft.corn
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
4
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system
per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on August 19, 2009.
/s/ Paul T Ehrlich
Paul T. Ehrlich
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), counsel for the
parties met and conferred telephonically regarding this motion on August 12, 2009. Microsoft
was represented by Paul Ehrlich. VirnetX was represented by Jason Cassady. Follow-up was
conducted via e-mail, and no agreement could be reached. VirnetX opposes this motion. An
agreement could not be reached because VirnetX took the position that no clarification is
necessary and that the proposed clarification does not accurately reflect the Court's order,
whereas Microsoft believes that the Court's clear statements concerning the scope of its
construction should be included in Appendix B to assist the jury by giving the jury an accurate
and precise view of the construction. Microsoft is accordingly seeking clarification and
amendment of Appendix B.
/s/ Paul T. Ehrlich
Paul T. Ehrlich
5
jagman in reply bidding war from 2/8/2006 they have not settled yet and I am going to make bigger pockets to hold all that cash glad it is in my ROTH LMAO I HAVE TO KEEP IT AS I CAN"t WRIGHT THIS THING OFF ON MY TAXES lol
NO NEWS FROM THE COURT TODAY
MORE INFO ON CLOSED-END FONDS
Closed-end Fund Association: http://www.closed-endfunds.com
Database of all domestic closed-end funds
including daily NAV and market prices. Includes
education, research articles and news and information
DON'T FOR GET OUR LITTLE DELTRON LLC
Company Profile
Deltron LLC
2880 Bergey Rd
Suite W
Hatfield, PA 19440 ours address is North Whales Pa. when SOLM bought it
Phone: 215-699-9261
Alt Phone: 800-523-2332
Fax: 215-699-2310
URL: www.deltronllc.com
Email: sales@deltronllc.com
Year Founded: 1952
Number of Employees: 100
Key Personnel: VP Sls: Jack Phillips
Description: Provides power supplies AC/DC with low-voltage/high-current
Their web page is the same as Tecn.power must be moving along intergrading them. Wonder what Solm has plans for them and what kind of PR
SOLM'S RESERCH AND DEVELOPMENT went from $869,234 Sept 2007 to $1,009,225 in Sept 2008 (THAT WHERE SOME OF THE 5 MIL WENT)
FDA APROVAL PENDING SYMBOL IMGG
JUST THOUGHT YOU MIGHT WANT TO KNOW OF ANOTHER STOCK THAT IS GOING TO MOVE SOON
CLICK ON THE WEB LINK AND LISTEN TO THE CONFERENCE CALL dean writes on the ihub board under deanjanes
Imaging3.com promotes the Dominion VI Scanner and the public company via the .com website:
http://www.imaging3.com/
Imaging3.net promotes the existing business of the C-Arms and C-Arm tables via the .net website:
http://imaging3.net/
DViS at the RSNA 2008
http://www.imaging3.com/rsna2008.htm
Dominion Vi Scanner
Three-Dimensional Real-Time Medical Imaging
The Dominion™ by Imaging3 is a revolutionary new multi-modality device that operates in real-time3D. The incorporation of all x-ray based technologies into a single device capable of producing real-time 3d images to be used both in diagnostic and interventional (sic) surgery applications will change the ways of imaging today. Imaging3 Technology 3D images are instantly constructed using high-resolution fluoroscopy and can be used as real time references for any current or new medical procedures in which multiple frames of reference are required to perform medical procedures on or in the human body.
YOU CAN GET MORE INFO ON CLOSED END FUNDS HERE http://www.etfconnect.com/select/fundpages/other.asp?MFID=117420
NAV is what the value per share the fund is worth
Closeing share price whar you could buy it at last night
Current distrubution rate is the dividend rate
Premium/Discount IF it is a - it is % under the NAV
+ it is the % over the NAV
fivestar maybe I am dreaming it might be comming.
A. I did not see a date when they got the contract
B. They did not say the date they sent the patent in. They made the solar pannels, made the web page then PR it.
What ever it is I think that they have got their ducks in a row.
If they R/S it and keep the A/S as they said they were going to have it it would not be to bad.
But why would they ask for a R/S now with some income coming in on the solor panels soon?? Maybe the stimulus money comming in?? Could buy back some shares.
C. Being a pinkey they could held every thing up for the right time. I am still dreaming
SORRY ABOUT THE LINKS YOU CAN GET THEN AT
http://www.virnetx.com
go to investor relations
LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK AND IF I AM ALL WET! didn't see windows 7 in the patent infringement but could have been in the others, vista, windows HP, ect was their
vistaviewer and daddycool check out the links in red on the botton let me know your opinion
vInvestor Relations
To Hear a Replay of the VirnetX Conference Call Click Here
VirnetX Conference Call on Markman Order & Business Strategy (Replay)
08/13/09 at 10:00 a.m. PT
VirnetX Conference Call on Markman Order & Business Strategy
Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:00 a.m. PT / 1:00 p.m. ET
Webcast Presentation Help
Click here for webcast
Add to Calendar Help
Click here to add this event to your calendar
VirnetX Investor Overview Presentation
Corporate Backgrounder
VirnetX Investor Overview Presentation
Corporate Backgrounder
fivestar What you know now maybe one of the reason for the R/S was to sell some stock for Tecn. Bldg. ( one earller post stated in the stockholders meeting they were going in renewable energy ) If they don't get the funds from the stimuls package would you vote for a R/S for the building or to get in a higher stock board? You don't see very many $3.00 and higher stock in the buleton boards or pinkey sheets or would like a like a few billion more shares and be in penney land for ever? If you are worried you can look up their by-laws in their SEC filings.
FROM YAHOO ON I4I PATENT INFRINGMENT WITH MS
i4i Case Influence on VHC 26-Aug-09 07:22 pm I cannot find the previous message relating to the discussion about i4i's influence and/or similarity to VHC's litigation so I started a new thread.
Microsoft has fired back a response to the Eastern District and Judge Davis (see URL below) regarding his ruling in favor of i4i. Either MS truly believes that they have "justice" on their side and have been treated inequitably or they are attempting to once again leverage their size/market position to shoot down his i4i decision and awards. As someone stated here before maybe the most appropriate way to cure their legal and patent infringement problems would be to pay the plaintiff and settle the case.
I do not have a legal background but I have got to think that with Judge Davis' reputation and track record an appellate court would have to find significant errors in his legal judgment in order to reverse it. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe MS is not use to a court of law that truly believes that individuals and companies are entitled to their intellectual property "rights."
Also, from a practical point of view I don't know whether the language and strategy that MS' attorneys have employed here is the best way to ingratiate yourself to a judge that will be hearing another trial against you in less than seven months. In any case, the scenario that is unfolding here with i4i, McKool Smith APC and Judge Davis cannot but help lay some groundwork for VHC's jury trial on March 8, 2010. A major difference (IMHO) though is that VHC's litigation will have much broader legal roots, IP claims and financial consequences.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9...
"OH what a GREAT FEELING ... SOLOMON!!!" Especially when you see it go up over a hundred percent on the stock opening on most of my shares. Cant wait to see the court day!
FROM YAHOO ON I4I PATENT INFRINGMENT WITH MS
i4i Case Influence on VHC 26-Aug-09 07:22 pm I cannot find the previous message relating to the discussion about i4i's influence and/or similarity to VHC's litigation so I started a new thread.
Microsoft has fired back a response to the Eastern District and Judge Davis (see URL below) regarding his ruling in favor of i4i. Either MS truly believes that they have "justice" on their side and have been treated inequitably or they are attempting to once again leverage their size/market position to shoot down his i4i decision and awards. As someone stated here before maybe the most appropriate way to cure their legal and patent infringement problems would be to pay the plaintiff and settle the case.
I do not have a legal background but I have got to think that with Judge Davis' reputation and track record an appellate court would have to find significant errors in his legal judgment in order to reverse it. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe MS is not use to a court of law that truly believes that individuals and companies are entitled to their intellectual property "rights."
Also, from a practical point of view I don't know whether the language and strategy that MS' attorneys have employed here is the best way to ingratiate yourself to a judge that will be hearing another trial against you in less than seven months. In any case, the scenario that is unfolding here with i4i, McKool Smith APC and Judge Davis cannot but help lay some groundwork for VHC's jury trial on March 8, 2010. A major difference (IMHO) though is that VHC's litigation will have much broader legal roots, IP claims and financial consequences.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9...
ANYBODY WATCHING THIS GO UP AND UP ONE PERSON FROM VHC IS
DOWN 3% BUT NOT BECAUSE OF iHUB BOARD MEMBERS
LISTEN TO CONFERENCE CALL
IT IS A $3.00 STOCK WITH 20 MILL FOR SHAREHOLDERS TO BUY
IF YOUR ARE LOOKING FOR A STOCK THAT IS $0.0003 with 30 bill shares this is not it.
SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VirnetX Holding Corporation (NYSE Amex: VHC) announced today that its president and CEO, Kendall Larsen, will be conducting a conference call on Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 1:00PM EDT, to discuss its current Markman Order in its litigation with Microsoft and the Order's impact on VirnetX's business strategy.
To listen to the call live on your computer, click on the webcast link: http://www.b2i.us/external.asp?b=1944&id=777&from=wc&L=e
YOU CAN GET MORE INFO ON CLOSED END FUNDS HERE http://www.etfconnect.com/select/fundpages/other.asp?MFID=176477
NAV is what the value per share the fund is worth
Closeing share price whar you could buy it at last night
Current distrubution rate is the dividend rate
Premium/Discount IF it is a - it is % under the NAV
+ it is the % over the NAV
AWP is holding its own
VHC might fit your general stragety A (might catch my first fly) LOL
STILL COUGHT NO FLIES vhc HAS 20M SHARES FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO BUY I GUESS I WILL HAVE TO PUT SOME HONEY ON IT if they win 6 bill from the law suit 40 mil o/s shares if the co. keeps say 3 bil that would equal $75.00 a share plus maybe dividens on the royalty fees. IS THAT SWEET ENOUGHT FOR YOU
STILL COUGHT NO FLIES 20M SHARES FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO BUY I GUESS I WILL HAVE TO PUT SOME HONEY ON IT if they win 6 bill from the law suit 40 mil o/s shares if the co. keeps say 3 bil that would equal $75.00 a share plus maybe dividens on the royalty fees. IS THAT SWEET ENOUGHT FOR YOU
2 CENTS REPLY TO NOT a CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION HEARING That was in reply to looking for a favorable ruling on the claim constructon ruling If you go to fvestar post 4285 menorndum go to PDF 6 (pdf 1 http://freepdfhosting.com/cbd349f71c.pdf
pdf 2 http://freepdfhosting.com/98368dc10c.pdf
pdf 3 http://freepdfhosting.com/79f610e218.pdf
pdf 4 http://freepdfhosting.com/70f65ecb1a.pdf
pdf 5 http://freepdfhosting.com/55c349d0fa.pdf
pdf 6 http://freepdfhosting.com/1e8b65c5e7.pdf ) read 5 to 12 espically 5 and 11 IF you want go to post 4227 the PATENT LINK when you are their move you curser to the left and move it down if I rember right in the 280s it will some where state a patentenee will have the right to a civil court and it will be up to the defence to prove they didn't infringe. So if toyota went their ( see artical in ihub Wall Street Journal (Takashi Nagase, chief of
Toyota’s advanced engine group in
North America, says his company is
“very interested.” ) they have to prove they didn't and the only they can prove they didn't This arm chair expert LOL says the judge will have to be on SOLM side in the summery judgement. To me if Toyota looses this court case they can't sell their prius in Japan because SOLM has their patent their. I can be corrected it is just my opinon
NOT IF THEY LOOSE THEIR PATENT CASE WITH VHC 6 TO 12 bILL SO FAR IT IS GOING IN VHC FAVOR IF THE JURY GOES THE WAY THE JUDGE THINKS IT IS A GONNER BUT WHO KNOWS WHAT THE JURY WILL DO.
jackson808 GET OUT I DIDN'T AND LOST STILL HOLDING DOWN SO FAR IF I SOLD IN SCOTTRADE I WOULD HAVE TO PAY THEM ( scottrade) MONEY. Look at imgg when they have FDA approval ride it up and up I could say SOLM and VHC but they are not so sure.
Virnetx v Microsoft patent infringement Document 247 8/19/09
APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
CORP., § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:07-CV-80 (LED)
Plaintiffs,
JURY TRIAL
V.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND TO AMEND APPENDIX B TO CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION OPINION
Microsoft respectfully moves to clarify and amend the Court's definition of
"virtual private network" in Appendix B to the claim construction order [Docket #246] to include
language from the Court's opinion that "privately" in the VPN construction requires ensuring
"both data security and anonymity."
At claim construction, one of the primary disputes between the parties on the term
"virtual private network" ("VPN") was over whether a VPN requires both anonymity and data
security as in a private network, or simply data security. The Court ruled that a VPN requires
both. See Claim Construction Opinion at 9 ("Accordingly, the Court construes "virtual private
network" as requiring both data security and anonymity."). While the Court resolved the
dispute clearly, the Court implemented this portion of its construction in Appendix B through the
word "privately":
virtual private network: a network of computers which privately
communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure
communication paths between the computers.
Id. at 35 (Appendix B). The word "privately" in this construction is the focal point for what it
means for a virtual private network to provide security on insecure communication paths, and
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 1 of 5
will be the crux of any argument over whether a particular network meets the Court's
requirements for a VPN. However, "privately" is a word that a lay juror may not understand has
the precise meaning given the term by the Court in resolving this dispute between the parties.
Additionally, that term was originally proposed by VimetX as part of its claim construction
position for "VPN," and VimetX has argued that its construction does not require anonymity,
contrary to the Court's construction.
To assist the jury and prevent any confusion at trial, Microsoft proposes adding to
Appendix B the definition of "privately" that the Court set forth in its opinion for the word
"private" in the VPN context. The Court specified that "private' in 'virtual private networks'
means both data security and anonymity." Id. at 8. The Appendix B definition would thus read
(with the new language underlined):
virtual private network: a network of computers which privately
communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure
communication paths between the computers. "Privately" means
ensuring both data security and anonymity.
The Federal Circuit has recently emphasized the necessity of assigning "fixed
meaning" to terms within constructions as part of the process of assigning unambiguous meaning
to the claims. See Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 563 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2009). In Every Penny Counts, the Federal Circuit affiiiiied the district court's claim
construction of the term "excess cash," which required the district court to define a phrase, -sale
price," that had been proposed as part of the "excess cash" construction by the plaintiff. Id.
The Court dismissed the plaintiffs attempt to criticize the district court's clarification of "sale
price," noting that "f the court had adopted [plaintiffs] proposed construction without first
assigning a fixed meaning to this construction, then it would quite clearly have failed to assign a
fixed, unambiguous, legally operative meaning to the claim." Id. (quotation omitted).
2
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 2 of 5
Here, the definition of "virtual private network" in Appendix B should be
clarified and amended to include the fixed meaning of "privately" given to that term by the Court
in the text of its opinion.'
Dated: August 19, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jared Bobrow
Jared Bobrow (Pro Hac Vice)
Lead Attorney
Matthew D. Powers
Paul Ehrlich (Pro Hac Vice)
Thomas B. King (Pro Hac Vice)
L. Okey Onyejekwe Jr. (Pro Hac Vice)
WEIL„GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
650-802-3000 (Telephone)
650-802-3100 (Facsimile)
jared.bobrow@weil.com
paul.ehrlich@weil.com
thomas.king@weil.corn
okey.onyejekwe@weil.corn
Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser (Pro Hac Vice)
Timothy E. DeMasi (Pro Hac Vice)
GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153-0119
2 12-3 10-873 5 (Telephone)
212-310-8007 (Facsimile)
tim.demasi@weil.com
elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
Daniel Booth (SBN: 24055196)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
713-546-5000 (Telephone)
Microsoft does not waive its prior positions on the construction of "virtual private network"
and other claim terms.
3
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 3 of 5
713-224-9511 (Facsimile)
daniel.booth@weil.com
Eric H. Findlay (SBN: 00789886)
FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP
6760 Old Jacksonville Highway, Suite 101
Tyler, TX 75703
903-534-1100 (Telephone)
903-534-1137 (Facsimile)
efindlay@findlaycraft.corn
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
4
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system
per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on August 19, 2009.
/s/ Paul T Ehrlich
Paul T. Ehrlich
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), counsel for the
parties met and conferred telephonically regarding this motion on August 12, 2009. Microsoft
was represented by Paul Ehrlich. VirnetX was represented by Jason Cassady. Follow-up was
conducted via e-mail, and no agreement could be reached. VirnetX opposes this motion. An
agreement could not be reached because VirnetX took the position that no clarification is
necessary and that the proposed clarification does not accurately reflect the Court's order,
whereas Microsoft believes that the Court's clear statements concerning the scope of its
construction should be included in Appendix B to assist the jury by giving the jury an accurate
and precise view of the construction. Microsoft is accordingly seeking clarification and
amendment of Appendix B.
/s/ Paul T. Ehrlich
Paul T. Ehrlich
5
Toastamatic Lets hope Technipower is first in line with the commercial grant program. Then we will have a real PR that will hit YAHOO FINANCE and IHUB NEWS ECT!
"FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL STIMULUS PACKAGE IS ALLOWING US TO RESTART BOTH PROGRAMS" who said that a he or a she???
MUST READ FOR OLD & NEW STOCKHOLDERS
SOLM HAS PATENTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES
. DUAL-INPUT INFINITE-SPEED INTEGRAL MOTOR AND TRANSMISSION DEVICE. This patent is the basis for our Electric Wheel technology. The patents cover both marine applications and farming and household appliance applications. This patent has been issued in five countries, as follows: COUNTRY DATE FILED ISSUED PATENT # STATUS Australia 11/19/91 11/19/94 551,644 Issued Canada 11/19/91 01/28/03 2,096,642 Issued Japan 11/19/91 01/31/03 3,394,771 Issued South Korea 11/19/91 01/07/99 187697 Issued United States 11/28/90 11/26/91 5,067,932 Issued METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROPELLING A MARINE VESSEL. This patent ties our Electric Wheel technology directly to marine propulsion and provides for a patent on regenerative feedback. This patent has been issued in the U.S. and is pending in three foreign jurisdictions, as follows: COUNTRY FILED ISSUED PATENT # STATUS European Union 04/29/96 Pending Japan 04/29/97 Published United States 04/29/96 01/26/99 5,863,228 Issued WIPO* 04/29/97 National Phase entered Chapter II demand filed 10/27/97 * The World Intellectual Property Organization is an agency of the United Nations which administers approximately 23 treaties dealing with different aspects of intellectual property protection. SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR A MULTIPLE INPUT AND DUAL OUTPUT ELECTRIC DIFFERENTIAL MOTOR TRANSMISSION DEVICE. This patent has been issued in the U.S. and is pending in two foreign jurisdictions, as follows: 41 <PAGE> COUNTRY FILED ISSUED PATENT # STATUS Japan 11/04/97 Published United States 11/19/96 12/22/98 5,851,162 Issued WIPO 11/04/97 National Phase entered Chapter II demand filed 5/20/98 PROPOSED PATENTS We have identified three potentially patentable technologies related to our Electric Wheel technology. We are currently preparing patent applications for the three technologies, which we expect to file with the PTO before the end of 2003. The patent process - from initial application to granting of the patents - is expected to take approximately two years in total
( The above was found in one of the first SOLM SEC filings)
As you now that SOLM ask for and the stockholders approved a 100 to 1 reverse split that was to go into effect by July 1 2009. The REVERSE SPLIT DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT before or after that date as I ( us stockholders) know it as of to day 8/26/2009 But did you know ( THE REVERSE SPLITS are also gouvern by the state corporate law and the company's articles of incoration and by-laws)
SOLM is a pinksheet stock doesn't have to report
SO WHAT IS THE RISK RETURN?
Reverse Stock Splits
A reverse stock split reduces the number of shares and increases the share price proportionately. For example, if you own 10,000 shares of a company and it declares a one for ten reverse split, you will own a total of 1,000 shares after the split. A reverse stock split has no affect on the value of what shareholders own. Companies often split their stock when they believe the price of their stock is too low to attract investors to buy their stock. Some reverse stock splits cause small shareholders to be "cashed out" so that they no longer own the company’s shares.
A company’s board of directors may declare a reverse stock split without shareholder approval. Although the SEC has authority over a broad range of corporate activity, state corporate law and a company’s articles of incorporation and by-laws govern reverse stock splits.
If a company is required to file reports with the SEC, it may notify its shareholders of a reverse stock split on Forms 8-K, 10-Q and 10-K.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/reversesplit.htm
I stand corrected 16% insiders and board of directors others 13.1% These % will be less because of the Options when figuring voteing rights SEC filings Date 2/20/09 proxy statement (definitive) Def 14A
NAME OF
NUMBER OF SHARES PERCENTAGE
OF
BENEFICIAL OWNER BENEFICIALLY OWNED COMMON
STOCK
Gary M. Laskowski
Chairman of the Board and Vice President 24,955,222 (1) 8.6 %
Peter W. DeVecchis
President 1,770,000 (2) * %
Samuel F. Occhipinti
Chief Financial Officer 525,000 (3) * %
Jonathan D. Betts
Director 5,087,665 (4) 1.8 %
Kenneth M. Przysiecki
Director 3,865,000 (5) 1.3 %
D.
Shannon LeRoy
Director 3,688,730 (6) 1.3 %
Glen Wegner
Director 6,750,000 (7) 2.3 %
All Executive Officers and Directors as a Group (7 persons) 46,641,617 16.0 %
9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Less than one percent based on a total of 291,271,790 shares issued and outstanding on February 9, 2009.
(1) Includes 498,217 shares of common stock owned by Woodlaken LLC and 440,479 shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of $130,440 aggregate principal amount of senior secured notes held by Woodlaken, and $23,727.91 of accrued interest thereon as of September 30, 2007, that is convertible into common stock at a price of $0.35 per share. Mr. Laskowski and Jonathan D. Betts, the managers of Woodlaken, possess voting and dispositive power for the securities held by Woodlaken. Mr. Laskowski disclaims beneficial ownership of the securities owned by Woodlaken except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. Also includes 167,826 shares of common stock owned by Bril Corporation Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, of which Mr. Laskowski is one of several participants. Mr. Laskowski disclaims beneficial ownership of the securities owned by Bril Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, except to the extent of his pecuniary interest herein. Also includes 25,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Laskowski at an exercise price of $0.55 per share that expire in July 2014. Also includes 184,024 shares of common stock owned by Mr. Laskowski’s wife and 100,000 shares of common stock owned by Mr. Laskowski’s son. Also includes 10,000,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr.
Laskowski at an exercise price of $.003 per share that expire on June 30, 2013.
(2) Includes 100,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. DeVecchis at an exercise price of $2.09 per share that expire in September 2011 and 100,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. DeVecchis at an exercise price of $1.45 per share that expire in November 2011. Includes 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. DeVecchis at an exercise price of $.0068 per share that expire on December 31, 2013.
(3) Includes 75,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Occhipinti at an exercise price of $1.45 per share that expire in November 2011. Also includes 100,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Occhipinti at an exercise price of $0.22 per share that expire in June 2012.
(4) Includes 498,218 shares of Common Stock owned by Woodlaken LLC. Mr. Betts and Gary Laskowski, the managers of Woodlaken, possess voting and dispositive power for the securities held by Woodlaken. Also includes 440,479 shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of $130,440 aggregate principal amount of senior secured notes held by Woodlaken, and $23,727.91 of accrued interest thereon as of September 30, 2007, that is convertible into common stock at a price of $0.35 per share. Mr. Betts disclaims beneficial ownership of the securities owned by Woodlaken except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. Also includes 64,996 shares of Common Stock owned by International Capital Partners LLC. Mr. Betts is the managing member of International Capital Partners LLC. Mr. Betts disclaims beneficial ownership of the securities owned by International Capital Partners LLC except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. Also includes 167,106 shares of Common Stock owned by Bril Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, of which Mr. Betts is one of several participants. Mr. Betts disclaims beneficial ownership of the securities owned by Bril Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. Also includes 25,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Betts at an exercise price of $0.55 per share that expire in July 2014. Also includes 323,300 shares of Common Stock owned by Mr. Betts’ wife and 55,097 shares owned by Mr. Betts’ minor daughter. Also includes 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Betts at an exercise price of $.03 per share that expire on June 30, 2013. Also includes 2,500,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Betts at an exercise price of $.0068 per share that expire on December 31, 2013.
(5) Includes 2,500,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Przysiecki at an exercise price of $.0068 per share that expire on December 31, 2013.
10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Includes 2,500,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. LeRoy at an exercise price of $.0068 per share that expire on December 31, 2013.
(7) Includes 3,000,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Wegner at an exercise price of $.03 per share that expire on June 30, 2013. Includes 2,500,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Wegner at an exercise price of $.0068 per share that expire on December 31, 2013.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners
The Company has determined that the following person is a holder of more than 5% of the outstanding shares of Solomon Common Stock as of February 9, 2009:
NAME AND ADDRESS OF NUMBER OF SHARES PERCENTAGE
OF
BENEFICIAL OWNER BENEFICIALLY OWNED COMMON
STOCK
Michael A. D’Amelio (1)
2 Oliver Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 38,212,261 (2) 13.1 %
(1) Mr.
D’Amelio is a former officer and director of the Company.
(2) Includes 1,604,826 shares of common stock owned by JMC Venture Partners, 1,976,633 shares of common stock owned by Jezebel Management Corporation, 2,340,375 shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of $695,400 in aggregate principal amount of senior secured notes held by Jezebel, and $123,731.53 of accrued interest thereon as of September 30, 2007, that is convertible into common stock at a price of $0.35 per share. Mr. D’Amelio is a partner in JMC Venture Partners and owns 100% of Jezebel Management Corporation. Also includes 25,000 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. D’Amelio at an exercise price of $0.55 per share that expire in July 2014. Also includes 11,000,000 shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. D’Amelio at an exercise price of $.03 per shares that expire on June 30, 2013.
OTHER MATTERS
The Board of Directors knows of no matters other than those described in this Proxy Statement that are likely to come before the Special Meeting.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
RICHARD A. FISHER
Assistant Secretary