@PP's
I think you're seriously back peddling. I spoke to the courtroom clerk for Judge Casper. She indicated very clearly that there was never a scheduled video recording let alone a "video streaming" event scheduled for this event.
Please tell us all where you received the information that this specific event was to be streamed. Maybe you believed since the last event was recorded this would be also. If so, that's a broad leap based on the few video's that have been recorded and made public thus far under this novel program.
no offence, but I also don't think Jesse Ropes is concerned in the least with what is inked on SA .
Patents-in-Suit, i.e., the ‘690, ‘558, ‘856, ‘501 and ‘998 patents, are entitled to claim the November 13, 1995 filing date of the Provisional Application. This requirement is more than a mere technicality: Although [the “specific reference” requirement] might appear to be a technical provision, it embodies an important public policy. The information required to be disclosed is information that would enable a person searching the records of the Patent Office to determine with a minimum of effort the exact filing date upon which a patent applicant is relying to support the validity of his application or the validity of a patent issued on the basis of one of a series of applications. In cases such as this, in which two or more applications have been filed and the validity of a patent rests upon the filing date of an application other than that upon which the patent was issued, a person, even if he had conducted a search of the Patent Office records, could unwittingly subject himself to exactly this type of infringement suit unless the later application adequately put him on notice that the applicant was relying upon a filing date different from that stated in the later application. As the court said in Sticker Industrial Supply Corp. v. Blaw-Knox Co., [405 F.2d 90, 93 (7th Cir. 1968): “Congress may well have thought that [this requirement] was necessary to eliminate the burden on the public to engage in long and expensive search of previous applications in order to determine the filing date of a later patent. . . . The inventor is the person best suited to understand the relation of his applications, and it is no hardship to require him to disclose this information.” I believe the issue of priority chain will come back to haunt us.
BTW - I own this stock and made a considerable investment. I just don't think we should be all looking through the rose-colored glasses of PP's.
Thx
AI
