XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[Realizer]

Wow we might get an opportunity here. If all that is being said, and I have read http://stks.co/qBA5 and http://stks.co/aT19 , is true then the ones who sell may give us a chance to load up on some cheap shares.

This is part of what I read: http://stks.co/aT19


In a court proceeding, a patent is not found “valid.” A
judgment in favor of a patent holder in the face of an
invalidity defense or counterclaim merely means that the
patent challenger has failed to carry its burden of establishing
invalidity by clear and convincing evidence in that
particular case—premised on the evidence presented
there. See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n.3
(Fed. Cir. 1988). If the PTO later considers the validity of
that same patent, it does so based on the evidence before
it and under the lesser burden of proof that applies in
reexamination proceedings. As the majority notes, Congress
granted the PTO the right to act within the realm of
its authority. In re Baxter, Int’l Inc. 678 F.3d at 1365.


These conclusions do not mean, however, that, when
the PTO does act in the context of a reexamination proceeding,
its conclusions can alter the binding effect of a
prior judgment in a judicial proceeding. They cannot, and
the PTO concedes as much in its response to the petition
for rehearing en banc when it states that “f a federal
court awards relief to a patent holder against an infringer,
a subsequent reexamination decision that the
patent is invalid does not disturb the judgment of the
court or alter its binding effect on the parties.”

PTO Response at 14. This concession is consistent with, and
dictated by, well-established principles of res judicata.
See San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 545 U.S.
323, 336 n.16 (2005) (“Under res judicata, a final judgment
on the merits of an action precludes the parties or
their privies from relitigating issues that were or could
have been raised in that action.”); see also Reed v. Allen,
286 U.S. 191, 198-99 (1932)