Wednesday, August 28, 2013

So Ordered



I saw one sentence in there that has a colon, a semi-colon, three comas and some bullet numbers.  One sentence.  That race car covered some ground, but not sure exactly where it is going.  That's why I picked "other words" above . . .


Slashnuts said...

Federal Circuit raises the bar
for inequitable conduct defense

Like the proverbial child caught stealing cookies
from the jar, patent infringement defendants
sometimes try to squirm out of the tough situation
at hand by accusing their accusers. Many charge
that a court should render the patent in question
unenforceable because of wrongful conduct by the
patentee during prosecution — a tactic the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit described
as a “plague” in its 2011 Therasense, Inc. v. Becton,
Dickinson and Co. decision.

In that case, the court significantly weakened the
so-called inequitable conduct defense by establishing
a heightened standard. More recently, in
1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc., the Federal
Circuit raised the bar yet again for defendants trying
to meet the Therasense standard based on the
mere nondisclosure of information to the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (PTO).

The inequitable conduct defense requires the accused
infringer to prove with clear and convincing evidence
that the patentee misrepresented or omitted
material information with the specific intent to
deceive the PTO. The accused infringer must prove
that the applicant:
n Knew of the reference,
n Recognized that it was material, and
n Made a deliberate decision to withhold it.

Because Electronic Arts failed to establish
intent, the Federal Circuit didn’t even address
whether the references were material.

Potential showstopper
Raised bar, heightened standard, additional
hurdles — these are but a few of the terms that fit
the situation. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit clarified
in 1st Media that defendants that can’t offer “smoking
gun” evidence of a patentee’s intent to deceive
the PTO can expect little to no success in court.

nobody123789 said...

Process YES! Justice MAYBE, in "a while".

nobody123789 said...

One of the problems with this plea to convince the Court that because of the infringement they are suffering financial deprivation is its impact on any awarded damages.

In other venues Slash is purporting damages to exceed $500 million. This estimate is based on the 20% royalty that the company has now publicly refuted and (a much lower level) will be used to calculate damages when/if they are awarded. Very recently Slash used this flawed estimate of royalty to calculate the expected revenue for GERS based on increasing production by its licensees. So, sorry Slash, estimates are way off, again, on both accounts.

Anonymous said...

n0b0dy still on board trying to learn to trade, dont read book stoopid rednek. come to my klass ill teach oyu how trade securities, you are bad and wife left becaz poor

techguess said...

slash is bullying me over at I-hub....shrill like a girl..

500 million tradable public shares is the target...4 dollar stock minimally

techguess said...

oops I meant nobody 123789...sorry slash

nobody123789 said...

500 million shares, $4 dollars a share, P/E of say 15. That would mean a minimum of 25 cents a share annual earnings or $125 million per year earnings. With their (reported margin) being 30% that would mean $178 million a year in revenue. With their royalty of about 10% (at best) that would mean $1.8 BILLION in corn oil revenue for their small stable of clients. You drinking the same beverage as Slash? I suspect you dug deep to buy all all those "cheap" shares yesterday -- but that dizzying event should not distort your ability to calculate. You are after all the Tech meister.

nobody123789 said...

By the way pointing, out analytical flaws in hopes and dreams is not what you call "bullying". Let's make sure that we define our terms.

Slashnuts said...

How High Will Oil Prices Go?

Thank God for companies like GERS, GPRE, BIOF, ANDE, etc. fighting for our freedom from foreign oil.

Crude Oil (WTI) USD/bbl. $109.92 +0.91 +0.83%
Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. $116.38 +2.02 +1.77%
RBOB Gasoline USd/gal. $308.58 +5.17 +1.70%
NYMEX Heating Oil USd/gal. $320.08 +3.99 +1.26%
CBOT Soybean Oil USd/lb. $44.78 +0.26 +0.58%

So much for "big oil's" BS about corn raising the price of fuel and food right?

CBOT Corn USd/bu. $480.75 -5.50 -1.13%

Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$

nobody123789 said...

Sideways trading, today waiting for the next bolus of dilution shares to drop lower.

Slashnuts said...

Sounds like the court is growing tired of the defendants delaying tactics.

"The court does not wish to delay summary judgment briefing pending the resolution of those discovery issues..."

The preemptive strike to surgically remove their excuse for another delay has pushed forward this motion for SJ.

"..if it proves necessary to do so."

Sounds like the court considers the inequitable conduct claim a waste of time. Pushing it aside and casting doubt on the need to even schedule a briefing for it.

This mimics the voice of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when they described
this inequitable conduct tactic as a “plague” adding defendants can expect little to no success in court.

Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$

Anonymous said...

the math nobody provides is flawed because some off it's presumptions are false.

nobody123789 said...

Challenge them with objective information, just don't flap your gums because you do not like the conclusion! What has not been in evidence here for a long term is any critical thought, mostly hymns by the Hallelujah Chorus.

The only assumption in the above outside of Tech's dream scenario is the P/E; and that can certainly be played with as a form of sensitivity analysis. So stop flapping and start thinking.

Slashnuts said...

Guardian Energy's Motion to Stay DENIED!$!$!$!$!$
A stay is NOT WARRANTED!$!$!$!$!$
The September 5, 2013 hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Stay is CANCELLED!$!$!$!$!$

GS CleanTech Corporation,
v. Civil No. 13-1387 (JNE/SER)
Guardian Energy, LLC,
This case is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay. The Court has considered the arguments presented by counsel in their written submissions and concludes that a stay is not warranted. The motion is DENIED without prejudice. The September 5, 2013 hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Stay [Docket No. 9] is cancelled.
Dated: August 28, 2013
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
United States District Judge

Best $.99 I Ever Spent!$!$!$!$!$!$
Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$!$!$!$

Free Blog CounterTamron