Replies to post #55947 on XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[Stoppatentthieves]

I agree there was nothing surprising in the brief but I
thought they presented a compelling rationale nonetheless.

Hopefully they will have plenty of support from the amici curiae

[JJSeabrook]

The "We don't agree" is supported by U.S. Supreme Court opinion, as well as the CAFC's own precedential opinions. "We don't agree" because the panel didn't follow the U.S. Supreme's guidance, as well as the court's own precedent. That's about as good as it gets when arguing the point. Is it enough? We'll hopefully know after a few weeks have passed.


Long-vestor Wednesday, 10/15/14 11:57:49 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 55946
Post # of 55954
Like I said in aug, the courts ruling used more concise application than prior.. Regardless it made for a nice quick flip.

Currently, flip target is .92. I'm not getting a sense the en banc review has applied anything stronger, other than 'simply' "We Don't agree". which is not strong enough for an appeal or reversal. . .

I'd expected IP's attorneys too have another card to toss out, but,, apparently, "we don't agree", illustrated an empty hand. That's weak.

Regarding current market stock price evaluation, and the gamble,, that play was already embedded into price and why it lost the 1 buck support. .