Its a contracts case, not patent infringement. Dispute over SCM failure to pay IAW their obligation in the contract.
Technically, SCM licensing the IP in the first place says they at least SCM validated the value of the patents, to the tune of 30 million over 5 years. Technically, SCM acknowledged patent dispute within the contract driving the licensing and acknowledgement of the leverage value of MMR IP. Unfortunately, that was undermined by the parallel JER deal (same key people - Omidi - as SCM). That allowed a cloud of perceived shadiness to develop over the intent behind the SCM licensing deal. i.e. if JER was to merge with MMR, wouldn't SCM essentially be paying IP licensing fees to them selves (same key people as JER) after the merger?
There has been speculation on here about reason JER merger tanked; namely over dispute on how the RHL debt was to be handled (hence why it is important to see how RHL debt handled in this WAG deal; it will exhibit how true "taking care of the little guy 1st" statements are).
Thankfully, the SCM court filings are sticking to pure merits of the contract and status of the parties(MMR DE corporate status) at time of contract. If you want a legal opinion on filings, seek out an attorney. From my non-lawyer read, I think MMR is doing pretty good shooting holes in the constantly moving targets (read obvious delay) that SCM presents. SCM's Demurrer rejected last week (though most are). still good thing.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
