InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 49
Posts 2419
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/31/2014

Re: Vandalayind post# 24482

Thursday, 09/06/2018 2:33:33 PM

Thursday, September 06, 2018 2:33:33 PM

Post# of 83146
Sad but true. Having multiple firms filing against CVSI does not look good at first glance. But if anyone bothers to dig in to this they will see what Benjo and I see and not worry about it.

It sucks the price of the stock down now but once all of this is settled in CVSI's favor, it should springboard back up.

I stand by my statements of law firms needing to find enough people. If and when that happens, they still have a slew of other things they have to prove. We have discussed the issue of did CVSI mislead investors by failing to inform us about the final-rejection.

Other things the law firms will need to do is show 'materiality' .. which I believe they cannot. It would be one thing if CVSI had but one product and it relied heavily on the patent in question. Thats not the case. CVSI generates a vast majority of its revenue on other products completely, in a completely different side of the business. If the patent becomes abandond, or were never even filed at all, the revenue would not be affected. This means the patent is NOT material.

I could go on..

A fool and his money is a friend indeed.