Diac was on the verge of selling the patent. He used the fact that we had not paid him the monies due according to the 2008 settlement as the basis to foreclose on the patent and sell it. He would have sold it and the company would have owned nothing we not fought him.
Our case was that Diac had violated the terms of the 2008 agreement by interfering with our business operations by not allowing us to enter into deals. We won an TRO based in part of facts substantiating allegation. That TRO stopped him from selling the patent. That was what this state case was all about.
Despite what some have reported, the state case was never about getting rid of the 2008 agreement that voided the $117M court judgment, it was about enforcing the common law duties included in that agreement, like the duty not to interfere or obfuscate our ability to uphold our end of the agreement. If we would have won we would have kept Diac from interfering with our ability to monetize the patent and probably damages for lost business opportunities.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
