InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 11
Posts 5005
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/14/2009

Re: Prudent Capitalist post# 22143

Wednesday, 03/08/2017 6:11:50 PM

Wednesday, March 08, 2017 6:11:50 PM

Post# of 23271
Claims construction was MODIFIED by the appeals court. PART of it was reversed PART of it remains. Did you even read the ruling? I certainly made a few bucks on the momo rise! Definitely worth playing with the stock. Todays momo will draw in more players as the stock popped so there may be more money to be made. I certainly would not go long for very long. The appeals court gave the district court cart blanche to end the case when they said it would likely not change the outcome because PTSC stipulated to non infringement. Their "opinion" in not like some guy on the streets opinion on a topic. The appeals court claims construction is the one the district court judge has to use going forward. PTSC has only said they are reviewing the ruling to determine their next move. That review could very well say that they feel they cannot win even with the new claims construction. There is not going to be some other new construction out of the district court. If that PR comes out then it is look out below. If PTSC says they feel they can continue and IF the district court even lets them then the defendants will file for a summary judgement. The district court could simply approve a summary judgement of non infringement at that point. If not then it goes to trial. It is certainly no slam dunk at that point for PTSC because the issues are very complicated for anybody to understand.

The appeals court said:

"Although this minor modification to the district court’s construction likely does not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s construction"

They said that because they affirmed one of the 2 key limitations in the CC that PTSC stipulated non infringement to.