InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 1023
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/11/2015

Re: CDJ post# 21588

Monday, 05/09/2016 8:26:54 PM

Monday, May 09, 2016 8:26:54 PM

Post# of 46831
One thing that just came to mind on Cooper v Lee.

1. Because it was scheduled for conference there was a judge who felt this needed to be discussed, I forgot about this part of the process.

2. This is a positive no doubt

3. This could mean that the reschedule may indeed be related to the Cuozzo outcome. Ie should SCOTUS feel Couzzo issues need to be addressed I would be very surprised if this issue was ignored. Cuozzo may mean a great deal to patent holders right now.


Just a thought, means little lol, but something to consider.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent WDDD News