I see you were unable to come up with a single post that supports your notion that I had reported to this board multiple times that WSGI's patent application was denied.
As I don't care to play wordsmith games with you, let's just simplify things. Let me know which of these statements you don't agree with so we can narrow our focus and hopefully provide some clarity for others. I even gave you some variables to select from in the last statement.
1. WSGI currently has no patents granted for ARGUS.
2. WSGI has applied for patent protection on the ARGUS.
3. WSGI received an unfavorable report back from their PCT application indicating that most of the WSGI claims lacked novelty or an inventive step over the claims of Kroplin and others.
4. The unfavorable report will have a positive, negative, or no effect on WSGI's chances of obtaining a patent grant under their existing claims as it carries a considerable, insignificant, or no weight in the granting of a patent.
As to La Jolla. . .WSGI has claims. . .whether or not they have any merit will be determined by a judge. My take is that everything they are complaining about was spelled out in the agreements they signed. I warned others here of the cash true-up provision loophole and lack of floor price protection and its impact long before WSGI made it an issue. I'm summarizing here, but I received many a response to those warnings telling me I was crazy.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
