Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[rolvram]

Even though Judge Denise claims this is not ruling on technicalities that's exactly what she does in this decision (http://www.scribd.com/doc/212249185/WDDD-SJ-Order).
She concludes that no reference was made to the provisional patent application in the first sentence of the full application but:
a. Worlds got this corrected in 2013 by the USPTO
b. References were made in communications with USPTO in the application process
c. References where made in other subsequent applications filed as continuance in part to the patent application in question

Common sense, which is the main principle behind any law, clearly shows plaintiff's intent. The argument that this would open up a pandoras box regarding prior art fall on it's own unreasonableness as that would not be something that was mentioned in the correct place of the application, never mind that is the also the responsibility of the USPTO beyond what the applicant discloses.

Nothing has changes (other than the stock price as people read the heading and do not read the content) - they will surely file new action.

Bottom line is nobody denies infringement!