Replies to post #35936 on T M M Inc (TMMI)

[Urbanlegend]

This is a good explanation of the complexities. It certainly demonstrates that Dimension’s claim is about much more than $54k, and that Dimension seeks control of the IP. I think their claim (other than for the debt) is likely baseless and a shakedown, hampering Tmmi’s ability to move forward. I do not agree with those who say that Tmmi has nothing. But now they have to deal with Dimension yet again.

You say:

TMMI emerged from bankruptcy in 1996, reorganized and owning the VDK2.1, VDK2.2, VDK2.3 and VDK2.4 licenses that originated with ISI in 1994, and also previous VDK 1.0-1.9. The cost of the VDK2.1, VDK2.2, VDK2.3 and VDK2.4 licenses was $5,000,000 which TMMI settled in full.

As per this, ISI licensed VDK 1.0 - 1.9, and VDK 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 to Tmmi, and only VDK 2 to DFMI. I think the appeal court will have a hard time understanding why Tmmi sued for VDK 2 in the first place given its apparent insignificance, and why none of these other VDK sequences made their way in to the factual record. There may need to be new evidence called. More litigation unfortunately.

And the court is also bound to be curious about VDK 3. Who is the licensor?