Replies to post #36473 on Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[tradetrak]

Thanks, IBB. That was comforting. Especially, in reviewing the doc, this:
For purposes of deciding this case, we need not
address the quantum of support required from a patent
owner. If it were not framed in terms of a presumption,
the standard used in Atlantic Gas Light—evidence that
“reasonably brings into question the accuracy of a petitioner’s identification of the real parties in interest”—may
prove useful. In this case, it suffices to say that, as discussed below, Worlds presented more than enough evidence to sufficiently put this issue into dispute. 9 Bungie’s identification of the real parties in interest reads, in its entirety: “Bungie, Inc. is the real partyin-interest.” J.A. 354, 3728, 4918. Given the statutory
requirement that an IPR petition list “all real parties in
interest,” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) (emphasis added),
Bungie’s statement effectively represents that Bungie is
the sole real party in interest.
and this:
As an aside, we have some concern that the Board
may have relied on attorney argument as evidence that
Activision was not controlling or funding these IPRs. See
J.A. 510, 3877, 5095 (citing Bungie’s briefing and stating
that “[o]n this record, we accept Petitioner’s express
representations that Activision is not controlling or funding this proceeding”); see also Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). This is particularly concerning given that the Board’s apparent reliance on
such statements seemed to outweigh the actual evidence
presented by Worlds.