Replies to post #133423 on Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[Gold49er]

Claims 8 & 10 I'm glad you disagree absintheminded

I gotta disagree. Claim 8&10 is just biometrics. If we were talking about multiple patents then I could see them no longer consolidating because of differences, but claim 8&10 doesn't seem like enough to me. IMO.

Not so Absintheminded after all... Grin

I will start by making a small joking comment on your statement.

It just sounds so understated "Claim 8&10 is just biometrics."

I know what you are trying to say within the confines of the word limit of the Post headline.

It just sounds funny to hear "it's just biometrics".
Biometrics being such an intrical and important part of the patent.

You do a a very good point. But as you state the differences arises in Biometrics and for this very reason I will reserve the right to debate
This issue further as to why the Cases may have been seperated.


If indeed the cases were seperated. I use RPX as my source for Pacer Documents for cost considerations, and don't UP subscribe in order to get complete Information. But from what I read on the Board the cases were seperated.

Therefore I will continue based on that being a fact. Remembering something in a Referance Document I found a few months back, triggered my original statement and I had to find it and confer.

So thank you for disagreeing.

If this post has a Theme it's TIME

The Claims on all 3 are the same except Claims 8 & 10 which TrustWave is not infringing upon.

When the cases are combined initially, usually a Joint Defense Agreement is entered into and as such creates a Whole Huge Can of Worms for the Defence Teams.


As a defendant participating in a lawsuit involving multiple defendants makes the case more complex for a variety of reasons.


And for that I will leave a reference source at the bottom of the post, so those interested may see all the issues that arise.
Huge Can of Worms definitely being an accurate description.

But I'm going to concentrate on one specific area that being the Markman hearing Alloted Time (time playing a major role in Joint Defence)

Since claims 8 & 10 do deal with all important Biometrics Centrify and Duo have additional Claims upon which they are Infriging, it may have been AGREED UPON that Trustrave may have been asked to opt out of the Joint Defence Agreement.

My thoughts being here that Biometrics are vitally importent to the Defence Case and over ride the Benefits of a threesome Joint Defence.

When it comes to the Markman hearing If one claim interpretation issue affects all defendants, it is likely to be the primary issue presented to the court in terms of pages in the briefing and allocation of time at the hearing.

Issues that affect only one defendant, while important to that one defendant, invariably will be found later in Markman briefing, and later in Markman hearings before the court. As a result, that issue will receive less treatment than what would ordinarily be provided if that defendant was the only defendant participating in briefing the issues.


That's the way the Document I'm using as a reference source was written see page 9.

I'm sure there are variants in that rule.

Such as Since this case involves 9 Claim infringements that are the same, and only Two that don't pertain to all three.

Then the Court may have Found in a Markman hearing that it will deal with the 9 that effect all 3 and 8 & 10 will be dealt with near the end of the hearing. You have to read page 9. A preset time set in advance of the Markman hearing.

In this case there are two defendants with additional Claims against them, and perhaps the court stays with a decesion to say in the Markman hearing we will deal with the claims affecting all three Defendant's first and the Additional Claims are be handled near the end of the trial. Leaving not much time as perhaps the Defence would like.

Oh no we object say Duo and Centrify.. Tough says the Magistrate.

That said, Centrify and Duo possibly decided it may not be able to provide an adequate defense on claims 8 & 10 in the time allotted in the Markman hearing near the end. if it continued as part of a 3 party Joint Defense Agreement and asked that Trustwave be Seperated so more time could be alloted for the Important Issue of Boimetrics on claims 8 & 10.

I only present this debating point because SFOR just ammended and added additional Claims to the Complaint, and now TrustWave is being Seperated from Centrify and Duo and within days.

The above explanation maybe the reason, thus going back to my Original Theroy in my previous Post.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128432284

This all maybe a moot point if none of the defendants was seperated from the rest. A point I'm still not completely sure of.
And would like verification of, if someone has it

If nothing else, this post brings out one of my Resource Documents from back when I was doing research on Markman hearings months back.

And a PDF Document that many maybe interested in Reading. I know it helped to understand a subject, not really touched on except to say the Cases were combined not that long ago.

Multiple Defendant Patent Infringement Cases: Complexities, Complications and Advantages+ - Hunton & Williams


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hunton.com/files/Publication/e7e49e13-2327-4d36-a04c-1dcc301527c4/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/b2cc8f60-eb07-41f7-8949-787a644f1cff/Multiple_Defendant_Paper_AIPLA.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiv_eCorPfRAhVIySYKHQZTA2EQFggsMAM&usg=AFQjCNGTmff9RSV_L1t1ENZP4_zVnUFCNQ&sig2=KiueWOF87MJPueq5gt0jcg

______