InvestorsHub Logo

DeerBalls

09/01/21 1:43 PM

#104509 RE: Plowmaster #104507

WHY-NOW???--Forced-to,-legal??--The-anti-dilution-clause-had-been-in-his-contract-for-nearly-ten-years!

All of a sudden, Emil had to give back shares??? TOTAL BULLSHIT!!

Where are all these "paid promoters"???? Total crap! We barely hear anything out of/about VPLM and for good reason!

OS down from 2.1B to in the 1.6B range...GREAT!


Emil gave back his shares for the optics of being gracious but the reality is he was forced to or face legal issues. Plus he can now promote ‘lower shares’ through paid promoters

drumming4life

09/01/21 1:54 PM

#104511 RE: Plowmaster #104507

Highly doubtful!

Stef07

09/01/21 4:14 PM

#104518 RE: Plowmaster #104507

So why the recent rush to file in Waco? To be clear, most patent suits filed in Waco are by NPEs looking for a faster and more predictable road to settlement and not necessarily the largest possible jury award. But as the recent verdict in VLSI v. Intel revealed, when given the right case, juries in the Western District have no trouble granting the $1Billion+ awards seen in the other major patent venues. For non-practicing plaintiffs, filing in Waco also has the benefits of knowing exactly who your judge will be and that the chance of an early invalidation of the asserted patent(s) by either the court or the PTAB is essentially zero.

Remember the law is on the defendants side. So when Judge Albright dismisses all of VPLMs bs, will be interesting what kind of excuses VPLM will come up with for it.




[color=red]

For non-practicing plaintiffs, filing in Waco also has the benefits of knowing exactly who your judge will be and that the chance of an early invalidation of the asserted patent(s) by either the court or the PTAB is essentially zero.

[/color]



Of particular interest to non-practicing plaintiffs, Judge Albright has never granted a pleading stage motion for lack of patentable subject matter (often called “101” or “Alice” motions). Judge Albright’s well-publicized judicial philosophy is that given a patent’s presumption of validity, such motions are appropriate only after claim construction discovery is completed and a Markman order is entered.