Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[HighRider]

There was never a day in court related to the 2009 non-agreement. This was a settlement agreement between Pattin and the Daic parties. Don't believe there was ever a court case associated with it, therefore all documents filed with the USPTO could not have included any court documents reflecting a state court case and any assignment to the Daic parties as a result. You can come to your own conclusions about who filed and how they had authority. As I previously said they don't have to file legal legit documents, it doesn't matter to the USPTO. It only becomes an issue when the owner challenges these assignments, which is what Calypso is doing. It does nothing for Calypso at the present time to have these assignments changed, in fact it adds to their case of interference.

Below is from SEC documents.
8. It is hereby agreed that the obligations of the Sellers hereunder are contingent upon such a complete settlement, dismissal with prejudice and broad form release of all claims that were and/or that could have been asserted against the Company, it officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and any defendants named in the Lawsuits and a Release and Satisfaction of the Judgment obtained in the Daic Lawsuit, more fully described above, which is a condition precedent to the Sellers having any obligation and/or liability hereunder and failing which to Sellers satisfaction on or before March 24, 2008, the Seller’s shall have the sole and absolute right and discretion to notify the Escrow Agent of such failure upon which such Escrow Agent is hereby authorized to immediately end the escrow and distribute the respective shares to Sellers and the money to the Buyers, respectively.

Source:http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/719729/000121478208000133/0001214782-08-000133-index.htm

You might want to read this stuff. Para.#8 in the Purchase and Sale Agreement above. The 2008 agreement also has info about the Daic parties giving up the original judgment. We now have the latest court filing in state court by the Daic parties saying they do not want turnover relief. Have you read the state court cases ? State court cases 200722571 and 201002545. As far as sources, do you have any?