Replies to post #112988 on Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[absintheminded90210]

You don't think it was settled because PF/MS was getting their ass handed to them by Blank Rome?

[shibainu12345]

Settlements are far better than trial verdicts in civil cases my friend. It's a win-win for everybody. Save money, absolute guarantee of monetary awards (cash and licensing in this case), and IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL. Most importantly, it's fast.

This is definitely a big score for SFOR and a credit to Blank Rome who was able to negotiate said settlement.

Would you rather a law firm go to trial in all their cases and win 60% of the time...yes maybe with more money. Or a law firm that has the ability to negotiate and settle 95% of the time. The latter is the winning records.

Besides the courtroom buddy, the court of public opinion is sometimes more important. Everyone and their mother knows SFOR got paid out by Microsoft on their patent....

You keep talking about how the true efficacy has never been tested. Yes it has, are you kidding me? Microsoft could have bankrupt SFOR easily....oh by the way....a jury trial is made up of 12 people just like you and me....their opinions are based on who has the better lawyer.

[CapnLookOut]

ah BS..they settled. Just splitting hairs is all. Like the patent TROLL comments.

$SFOR

[Gold49er]

Koog - Sorry BUT YOU ARE WRONG! CASE TESTED


As someone who deals in FACTS rather than rather than some who deals in perceptions or conjecture of how things occurred, in a couple of quick sentences in a post with no basis in fact and presenting No Evidence to back up their statements.

I do apologize for being Blunt Koog, but.......

I am tried of False Statements on the board being made in regard to saying that the case just settled out of Court and their was no Trial.

Your Post Koog

The case was never adjudicated and the patent's efficacy has never been tested.

The issue was settled out of court. It could have been settled by Microsoft for any reason. Certainly, no precedence has been established.

In the case of StrikeForce vs PhoneFactor a Markman Hearing was Conducted.

Detailed analysis was heard by the Court to include Expert Witnesses and Technical Terms defined in finite detail in each of the claims within the Patent

From the Court Document.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a patent suit. On March 28, 2013, StrikeForce Technologies, Inc.(“StrikeForce” or “plaintiff”) filed suit against PhoneFactor, Inc. (“PhoneFactor” or “defendant”), FiServ, Inc. (“FiServ”), and First Midwest Bancorp, Inc. (“First Midwest”)alleging those entities infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,870,599 (“the ‘599 patent”). 1
On June 11, 2013, StrikeForce filed a “Notice of Dismissal of FiServ, Inc. Without Prejudice.”2 On June 25, 2013, StrikeForce filed an amended complaint removing FiServ as a defendant and adding additional allegations with respect to First Midwest.3 On July 8,
2014, StrikeForce filed a second amended complaint adding allegations that PhoneFactor and First Midwest also infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,484,698 (“the ‘698 patent”) and 8,713,701 (“the ‘701 patent”). 4
On December 4, 2014, StrikeForce and First Midwest filed a “Stipulation and Order of Dismissal” by which all claims between
those two parties were dismissed with prejudice.5

On November 19, 2014, the court held a Markman hearing regarding contested claim terms. This Report and Recommendation sets for the court’s suggested constructions of those terms.

II. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The patents-in-suit are titled “Multichannel Device Utilizing a Centralized Out-Of-Band Authentication System (COBAS).” The patents are directed to multichannel security systems and methods for authenticating a user seeking to gain access to, for example, Internet websites and VPN networks such as those used for conducting
banking, social networking, business activities, and other online services. Such technology is sometimes known as “out-of-band” authentication. When coupled with more traditional processes, they are more commonly known as two factor
authentication.6

Below I have included a quote from an article that explains in detail about Markman Hearings with the Link to the Article. I would suggest you read the entire article thoroughly when you have time.

Whether to Have a Markman Hearing
One of the first procedural issues the district court must consider is whether a Markman hearing is necessary at all. The Markman decision does not mandate a hearing and just requires that the judge, not the jury, construe the patent claims. Often, district courts decide that a hearing is unnecessary. Generally, the reason articulated is that a hearing is not necessary because the paper record provides all the information the court needs for claim construction.

Of course, a Markman hearing may take many forms, ranging from attorney argument based solely on the paper record to a multiday minitrial with live witnesses. Courts have allowed experts to present "tutorials" on the technology without cross-examination or, in some cases, have even appointed their own technical experts. While courts almost always permit argument on claim construction, the question of whether to hold a Markman hearing usually concerns whether to allow expert testimony.

http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=e3962a13-b898-4102-8fca-171c656a6ed2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" >http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=e3962a13-b898-4102-8fca-171c656a6ed2[tag]How a Markman hearing is conducted, and whether to have a Markman hearing.

A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".[1]

Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.[3]

Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection.[4]

The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent. Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, or other unwritten sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence.[5]
[/quote
Marksman Hearing

The statement in red above only goes to show that "most likely" (IMO) in Future Patent Infringement cases the same evidence does not need to be presented again, making the our current 3 Lawsuits that much simpler to be heard and the cases maybe be Settled in much less time.