Replies to post #22658 on Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[StockAlphaDave]

Yes there is always appeal risk thanks. There is risk we don't get through the PTAB as well.
All here are willing to take that first risk, some may not stick around on appeals if it goes there.

Oh well, I guess we are all willing to gamble our money on WDDD . Sorry not selling here!

[DataStream]

Louis, if the reasoning you are ascribing to Worlds is that filtering techniques were well known and thus obvious, I would counter that no prior art addresses avatar filtering within a field of view anywhere solely or in combination and in particular no references to 3D avatars in anything the PTAB has under review.

The PTAB and Appellate courts would have to find prior art, which by law they are prohibited from doing.

Of course both tribunals can do as they please but have to craft a very cogent rationale.

[StockAlphaDave]

It's great you brought this example up since this case is often utilized as you have, as an example of what could go wrong. Let me help you understand what you have missed here on both the legal and trading sides!

A. Since we are talking about appeal risk, the issue you raise can only really come into play AFTER a PTAB affirmation of the validity of the patents- this would be a good thing for the stock irrespective of what could happen at appeals.

B. The stock is trading at 2 cents right now, should the PTAB affirm, well most here can safely assume given the biggest risk is off the table, it should trade well above its all time high of 40+ cents, you can do the math on that return. So if someone is worried about the district court (which they shouldn't given the positive Markman) well they can still sell for an astronomical gain! Win win!

C. Now the next issue, is should we get to the CAFC and atvi appeals, the issue you raised unfortunately shows a lack of understanding of the vrng Google decision. You see, the issue that the CAFC killed vrng patents on is what has become known as a patent killer for CERTAIN types of software and bio tech patents - that being Alice 101, which by the way (again your comment was incorrect), was not raised by the defense but rather the CAFC Judges "sua sponte".

D. Now the point you are missing here, and a significant one, given the example you used as your rationale, is that Alice / 101 does not apply here. Now if you don't understand why and choose not to accept that, one simply has to read Bungie's defense briefings. This issue was not raised as a defense and anyone in patent law knows EVERY infringer who has the oppty to utilize that defense will use it given how the courts are accepting it as a patent killing machine!

Certainly some important discussion here to clarify things for those who don't understand the nuances between that (vrng Google) situation and this one.

E. One thing to note, just because some other company had their patent invalidated by the CAFC, it doesn't follow that another would, and certainly that's an illogical jump if the issues are different as they are here (ie it's and apples and oranges comparison). Every case is somewhat of its own beast given the nuances of patents, so it's challenging enough to draw comparisons. And in the case you've mentioned, since the issues are drastically different as I've explained it really isn't a valid example.

F. Finally, there are also many companies that have had a district court ruling upheld on patent validity at the CAFC, in fact statistics show overturning a validity ruling is actually uncommon, I suggest you look for those stats!

G. At the end of the day, the PTAB really is the biggest hurdle. If your concern is the CAFC well the stock will have made a ridiculous return if it ever gets there, that's an issue to worry about if it happens.

Glad I could clarify some of your confusion on this subject!