Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[Gold49er]

MidShift-"Another one time lump sum license agreement"

Another one time lump sum license agreement and this company will be done

If one of these infringing companies is Dumb enough to take this to Jury Trial, then we're are talkin Real Money.

Until that time the best we can hope for is Treble Damages Award on about $10M ($30M) and excellent Negotiations on Licencing & Royalties IMO.

Injuctions are an Excellent Negotiations Tool, or let's see what a Jury will Award.

IP injunctions after ebay: What it means for you.
http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/news-views/corporate-counsel/ip-injunctions-after-ebay-what-it-means-for-you

One has to remember that some of these Patents Bo Dietl (ACS) has an option to utilize. I'm sure he can use his Power, Influence, and Litigation Support to Help Protect the IP his Companies Products are based on.

In case you didn't Know Bo is running for Mayor of New York City
Here are People endorsing Him.
http://www.investigations.com/endorsements/


Beau Dietl & Associates
Litigation Support
http://www.investigations.com/private-investigator/litigation-support/


Beau Dietl & Associates provide comprehensive investigative and litigation support services to businesses, in-house counsel and law firms by performing comprehensive, background investigations and research of individuals, entities, locations, assets, utilities and more. Before and during preparations, for trial and appeal, through depositions and during the trial itself, BDA provides expert investigation and research services for attorneys throughout the country.

Our investigators work tirelessly to acquire relevant facts crucial to your success in the courtroom. With over 4 decades of experience in both law enforcement and private investigation, our team is more than prepared to take on even the most challenging cases, doing everything possible to provide you with the evidence you need to prove your case. We review evidence, depositions, and law enforcement actions; locate and interview witnesses; and give you the perspective of investigators with decades of law enforcement background.

Why Choose BDA for Litigation Support?

Our investigators have extensive experience with the collection, processing and preservation of evidence and our due diligence ensures it is the right evidence that will be legally admissible in court. With our multi-faceted and vast experience we know what is required to help you build a strong case for your clients.

What We Do

Knowing the strict schedules imposed by the judicial system, we work as quickly and efficiently as possible to acquire the information you need. The vast majority of our investigations involve evidence that is to be presented in court. With this in mind, we are careful to practice investigative methods that can bear the scrutiny of judges and juries. We believe in establishing and adhering to a high degree of comprehensibility, unambiguousness, and accountability to ensure our client’s confidentiality and satisfaction.

BDA will help you find the answers and information you need in order for your case to be successful. Our investigations are committed to the facts; whether this takes form in surveillance, asset investigation or locating witnesses, BDA can help you strengthen your case. No matter if the case is of a civil or criminal nature and you are looking for evidence to incriminate or to exonerate, BDA can help. Being in the private investigation sector for over 29 years, our investigators bring unique insight and skill to the cases they work on. For Marital, Criminal or General Litigation Support; BDA is a valuable asset for both defense and prosecuting counsel. For expert litigation support, call Beau Dietl & Associates today.


Beau Dietl & Associates
Litigation Support

G. Hunter Jones
http://www.investigations.com/team/g-hunter-jones/

Senior System Engineer / Digital Forensic Investigator

Hunter Jones has an engineering background and significant experience in systems design and development. As a systems developer, he is intimately familiar with the internals of computer systems, both operating systems and application programs. His systems design and development experience encompasses engineering and accounting applications as well as other functions for business and government clients.

As a certified computer forensics specialist (EnCase Certified Examiner and GIAC Certified Forensic Examiner), Hunter has established credentials in the fields of computer forensics and electronic discovery. These professional certifications attest to his skills and experience and also add to the credibility and reliability of his reports and testimony.

He has testified before federal and state courts in more than a dozen civil and criminal cases as well as in arbitration and administrative hearings. He has been accepted as an expert in both computer science and computer forensics, and has testified in cases involving patent infringement, contract disputes, criminal charges, and domestic matters. Most of these cases have involved forensic analysis of electronically stored information.


___________________________________________________________


Google Loses Bid To Kill ContentGuard Patents Under Alice
By Y. Peter Kang

Law360, Los Angeles (August 6, 2015, 10:57 PM EDT) -- About a month before trial is set to begin, a Texas federal judge Thursday refused a bid by Google Inc., Apple Inc. and others to declare patent claims invalid under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision in a lawsuit brought by ContentGuard Holdings Inc. alleging infringement of eight digital rights management patents.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap shot down arguments made by Google, Samsung, Apple and several other tech companies asserting that the patents held by ContentGuard were invalid under the high’s court’s Alice ruling since they are directed toward an abstract idea.

"The patents-in-suit are not directed toward an abstract idea, at least because they are directed toward patent-eligible methods and systems of managing digital rights using specific and nongeneric 'trusted' devices and systems,” the judge wrote in seven-page order.

Judge Gilstrap said that, for the sake of argument, even if the patents were directed toward an abstract idea, the claim limitations “are sufficient to ensure that the patents-in-suit amount to 'significantly more' than a patent simply on that abstract idea.”

The patents, the judge said, provide solutions to the problem of enforcing usage rights on digital content that depart from the routine and conventional way of managing digital rights.

In a separate order Thursday, Judge Gilstrap limited ContentGuard's damages theories, ruling that ContentGuard’s experts can’t testify about sales or profits earned by any of the defendants’ business models or devices.

Jury selection for the trial is set for Sept. 14.

Thursday’s rulings are the latest in a case that was first filed in 2013 and alleged that computer applications made by Amazon.com Inc., Apple, BlackBerry Corp., HTC America Inc., Huawei Device USA Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC and Samsung Electronics America Inc. infringed its patents.

The company in February 2014 then brought suit against Google, alleging Google Play Books, Google Play Music and Google Play Movies, some of which are used on the accused devices in the manufacturer suit, infringe its DRM patents.

Last year, Judge Gilstrap declined to consolidate ContentGuard’s suit against Google with the manufacturer litigation. In March, the judge refused a bid by most of the manufacturers to move the case to the Northern District of California.

In April, Judge Gilstrap denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, saying a subsequent claims construction order was incompatible with the motion and instructed them to re-brief the issue.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled largely in favor of ContentGuard in June, denying all but one of the defendants’ bids to grant either an inter partes review or covered business method review of three ContentGuard patents. In the wake of that decision, Amazon said in late July that it reached a settlement with ContentGuard.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Thursday.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,963,859; 7,523,072; 7,774,280; 8,001,053; 7,269,576; 8,370,956; 8,393,007; and 7,225,160.

ContentGuard is represented by Samuel F. Baxter, Jennifer L. Truelove, Robert A. Cote, John Briody, Radu A. Lelutiu, David R. Dehoney, Dana Vallera, Jonathan Yim, Dirk Thomas, Robert Auchter, Holly E. Engelmann, Eric S. Hansen and Seth Hasenour of McKool Smith PC.

Google is represented by Michael J. Malecek, Peter E. Root, Timothy K. Chao, Marisa Armanino Williams, Robert W. Unikel and Robert L. Laurenzi of Kaye Scholer LLP and Gregory Blake Thompson and James Mark Mann of Mann Tindel & Thompson.

The case is ContentGuard Holdings Inc. v. Google Inc., case number 2:14-cv-00061, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.





Apple Just Lost Its Patent Retrial To VirnetX
Reuters
Oct 02, 2016
http://fortune.com/2016/10/02/apple-loses-patent-to-virentx/
Video Explaining the case on the Linked Page.

A federal jury in Texas on Friday night ordered Apple to pay more than $302 million in damages for using VirnetX Holding Corp's patented internet security technology without permission in features including its FaceTime video conferencing application.
The verdict came in a new trial in Tyler, Texas that had been ordered by the judge in the case, Robert Schroeder, who last August threw out VirnetX's $625.6 million win over Apple from a previous trial because he said jurors in that case may have been confused.
VirnetX and Apple have been fighting over patents for years. The case began in 2010 when VirnetX, a Nevada-based patent licensor, filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas federal court, claiming infringement of four patents for secure networks, known as virtual private networks, and secure communications links.
A jury in 2012 awarded $368.2 million in damages, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., partly overturned that verdict, saying there were problems with how the trial judge instructed jurors on calculating damages.
On remand, VirnetX's two suits were combined, and in February, a jury returned with an even bigger verdict, $625.6 million, one of the highest ever in a U.S. patent case



However, Schroeder later voided the result, saying that the repeated references to the earlier case could have confused jurors and were unfair to Apple.
In the latest trial, jurors were asked to determine damages on two VirnetX patents that Apple had already been found to infringe, and to determine both infringement and damages on another two patents. The $302.4 million award was in line with what VirnetX had been demanding.
Apple spokeswoman Rachel Tulley declined to comment. An attorney for VirnetX could not immediately be reached. According to court documents, Apple is to face another court proceeding over whether it willfully infringed the patents, which could lead to higher damages.
Apple will also have to contend with the trial in a second lawsuit VirnetX filed against Apple over newer versions of Apple security features, as well as its iMessage application.
Many patent cases are handled in the Texas court, which has a reputation for awarding favorable verdicts to plaintiffs alleging infringement.
VirnetX had been assigned the four patents by Science Applications International Corp in 2006, court papers show.The case is VirnetX Inc v. Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, No. 10-417


Apple, Samsung win some, lose some in patent case
A jury tells Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing some of its patents, while Apple owes Samsung $158,400 for infringing one of the Korean company's patents.
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-samsung-verdict/