|Once again thanks Hugo I'm glad someone understands all this court jargon !It could go either way then|
|Our best bet is to try to push the fact that the exclusion of basic referencing static data is nonsensical. That was our argument before and they appear to be trying to block that off in their opening brief already.
Either that or by pushing the Judge that the alleged facts are still disputed by us and a Jury must decide. A Jury means uncertainty for them, uncertainty means mediation might still work.|
|That is an easy one to explain Warwick (easier that the technical jargon anyway)! It is because it is the Markman that appears to have been the killer, or more specifically, the Order Construing Terms issued by the Court. Then they needed the discovery process and expert testimony and rebuttals to nail it. That has taken the majority of 2016 to get to. It could not have been earlier than now.
This is it in a nutshell:
1) The Court has decided on the specific definition of changing data to mean "only changing data" meaning the data transmissions are exclusively comprised of data that has changed. Our patent cannot apply to data transmissions that include some form of static data. It is set in stone in the Order Construing Terms in March 2016.
2) They have used our own documents to show we specifically consider the stock symbol to be static data.
3) The fact that all the Defendants systems always include the stock symbol in all data transmissions was established in discovery and expert testimony and that fact is not disputed by us. Therefore some static data is always present so they cannot infringe the claims in our patent.
As none of these points are actually disputed between the parties, there is nothing for the Jury to decide on. It needed all expert testimony etc to get to this point and that has only recently concluded.|
|Hugo if was that clear cut surely this would have been thrown out years ago why take it to just a few days before the trial to attempt to get it overturned and did they not already try that in an early hearing where they lost It's all a bit confusing as it seems both sides think they are going to win !!Well either way we won't have long to wait now and we have all written off our investments anyway Anything from here is a bonus|
|The motion is for judgement and dismissal before trial (no case to answer) so only goes to trial if we successfully defend the motion. The Judge granted leave to file the motion but that does not necessarily mean it will be granted. It does seem very clear cut though so I hope Quest have something up their sleeve.If the motion is denied, then trial I guess.|
|Hugo guess both sides still think they will win does this imply they go to trial in January now?|
|Several documents just appeared on the Court PACER system. They have just formally submitted their motion for Summary Judgement for Non-Infringement for all the accused systems.
“….(collectively, “Defendants221;) hereby move for summary judgment of non-infringement pursuant to the Court’s Order granting permission to file a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on the “changing information” limitation which requires that the accused systems receive and supply “only data that has changed.”
It includes a 21 page opening brief which sadly seems to be a rather compelling argument as the key points all hang off the precise definition and reasoning set by the Court itself in the Order Construing Terms. Quest are going to need to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one. Answering brief due on 16th.|
|No updates on Pacer except a time extension on the Summary Dismissal motion but that was dated 22nd. Not sure if the mediation conference still went ahead or not.|
|Hugo any news|
|NR Standing down from the board before Papilon deal. Obviously the only way he can do the deal.|
|Someone technical might know more about this but this is what I understand from reading the documents.
A key purpose of the Markman is to give a precise and literal interpretation to important terms so there is no ambiguity. The Jury will not decide on the terms, they will apply the specific definition of the terms to the disputed facts.
At the Markman, they argued a specific definition for transmitting “changing data” to have the word “only” inserted before it. The Judge agreed with them and in the Order Construing Terms issued by the Court, the definition of “changing data” is to be read specifically as “ONLY changing data”. I think this means our innovation is to send 100% changing data only (with nothing extra so as to preserve bandwidth) rather than changing data with some component of unchanging data. That is certainly what the commentary from the Judge seems to say.
They claim our own documents have stated that we consider the stock symbol itself to be UNchanging data rather than changing data. Therefore, they state we clearly do not dispute the fact that the stock symbol is unchanging data.
They go on to point out that after the technical discovery process, it has been shown that all the Defendants include the stock symbol in all data transmissions and that was not a disputed fact by us. Therefore, the presence of the stock symbol in all data transmissions means they always include some unchanging data and never send “ONLY changing data”. Therefore they claim there is no case to answer as these two points are not disputed between the parties and the case should be immediately dismissed for non-infringement i.e. there is no dispute for the Jury to decide on.
They also stated that our expert testimony ignores the “only” part of “only changing data”. We have argued back that not sending any static referencing data at all is a nonsensical interpretation of the term. We also stated they were trying to re-argue the Markman terms but they turned around and said they were interpreting the terms literally as per the Order Construing Terms and if anyone was trying to escape the definition, it was us. Seemed a bit childish at that point actually!
I had hoped the mediation conference was an indication that the Court did not want to go down this path but I now think it is a standard part of the patent case process (to have mediation conferences). They are obviously sticking to their guns but we should maybe consider that they are just trying to puff their chests out to strengthen their position in any mediation discussions. They have also since submitted a further expert testimony for the Court and Counsel eyes only.
The good thing is, they cannot get this motion granted without us having the ability to respond so we are still in the game. Admittedly worrying though.Maybe they are just trying to scare us ahead of the mediation.|
|A party will file a motion for summary judgement for dismissal if they believe they have a black and white case with no important facts disputed therefore a trial before Jury is unnecessary (because there are no matters under dispute for a Jury to decide on). As they claim all material facts are known and in their opinion, not under dispute, they are asking the Judge to make a judgement of non-infringement and dismiss our case.
They filed documents for this before the Magistrate Mediation process was started. I understand as this process is present (and mediation processes being encouraged without reference to the outcome), they need the main Judge's permission to file the motion for summary judgement at this time. Judge Sleet has granted permission for this which is what the Order says. So the first document from them explaining why our case should be immediately dismissed is for 28th November. We will have an opportunity to respond in December but I imagine both parties will have the same position from the recent Pacermonitor documents.
What this means for the mediation conference, I don't know. Either it will be cancelled or they will go through the formalities. Clearly they think they have a strong case for immediate dismissal and given they have pushed this after the Magistrate mediation process got going, I imagine they are in no mood to settle with us.|
|Hugo what does that mean in lay mans terms ? Sorry don't understand court speak|
|Tuesday, November 15, 2016: ORDER - The defendants' request for leave to file a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is GRANTED. Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion and Opening Brief due by 11/28/2016, Answering Brief due 12/12/2016, Reply Brief due 12/19/2016. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 11/15/2016. (mdb)|
|I thought it was on the 17th November. Sure I read it somewhere on here.|
|Sorry 29th November is the mediation case|
|Not long to wait now for mediation hearing it's this Wednesday that will influence the pricing of Myclubbetting|
|I first wrote about Papillon Holdings (PPHP) when it joined the Sub-Standard List back in June (HERE) assessing whether it was “fit” enough for the squad. Well, I had no reason to worry as a mere three months later, it has issued an appalling RNS which will have the inevitable disappointing long-term consequences for shareholders.
As a reminder, Papillon is one of the many sub-scale investment companies with limited funds and was established to make an acquisition in the industrial and services sector which, I noted at the time, was previously was pretty wide.
Yesterday it announced that it was:
“…pleased to inform shareholders that it has signed non-binding Heads of Terms to acquire the entire issued share capital of myclubbetting.com Limited, a specialised betting and gaming related business, for new shares in the Company (the "Acquisition"). The Acquisition, if completed, would result in Papillon shareholders having a minority interest in the enlarged group (the "Group").”
As a potential RTO, the shares were suspended yesterday at 1.325p giving a market cap of £1.75 million and shareholders are now locked in.
So what are my concerns?
First, although the investment policy was drawn as broadly as possible I still think it is pushing it to make an investment in an online betting company particularly as the admission document pushed the energy and resources experiences of the Board of Directors; however, I imagine if pressed on this point, it would argue that it squeezes into the definition of the “entertainment” sub-sector of the “services̶1; sector.
Nevertheless, it still feels a bit disappointing.
More importantly though is my concerns with the deal itself.
Myclubbetting.com Limited is a reincarnation of Worldlink Group plc which listed on the Standard list (surprise) in late 2011 at a share price of £2.50 and was in liquidation a year later with over £4 million of debts and the shares suspended down at 8p. Its performance, however, clearly merited a bonus of over £1 million to its CEO, Neil Riches!
Upon liquidation, the assets were acquired by the CEO and others for £180,000 plus a future potential revenue share and that company is now called Myclubetting.com.
It enables local sports clubs to run betting services; however, this is a hugely competitive market. It was so when Worldlink went bust 4 years ago and is even more so now with recent consolidation in the online sports betting market.
On the plus side, it has had some recent press as Sam Allardyce, one of its brand ambassadors, had to step down from the role on taking on the England manager role. I guess all publicity is good publicity, right?
The recent abbreviated accounts of Myclubbetting.com Limited for the year to 30 April 2015 show losses to date of £2.7 million. I am interested to see more up-to-date financial information in the forthcoming prospectus but would be very surprised if the business is profitable at the moment or will be in the near-term.
By now, Papillion will have less than £700,000 in cash and once costs of the RTO are taken into account, it is highly likely that it will need to raise further funds to fund Myclubbetting.com. I can’t fathom why third parties will provide additional funding for a business and a management team that took a very similar business into liquidation a few years ago. Guess this is the Sub-Standard List though so anything is possible.
I feel for the shareholders locked in here as I reckon the share price is only going one way, as and when it comes out of suspension. I’ll review further once the prospectus comes out with a more definitive view on the RTO.
- See more at: hxxp://www.shareprophets.com/views/23633/papillon-holdings-a-shocking-deal-even-by-the-sub-standard-shockers-xi-standards#sthash.sVxX85OC.dpuf|
|Riches claims My Club Betting is due to launch on Europe’s Nasdaq (First North) stock exchange at a £10 share price with a value of £75million.|
|Just a reminder of the man we are dealing with.|
|But a similar scheme by chief Neil Riches fell into liquidation four years ago.
Allardyce had agreed to work with the firm, in which he holds shares, and had promoted it on television in his role as a pundit.
But our investigation found the company was run by a businessman who lost investors more than £4million when a near-identical previous scheme went into liquidation within a year of its stock market launch.
As that venture, called Worldlink, was crashing in 2012, 57-year-old boss Neil Riches paid himself a £1,076,485 bonus on top of his £223,500 salary.
Allardyce, 61, quit his role with the new firm — which promises lucrative rewards for hard-up sports clubs — immediately after he was alerted to The Sun’s findings.
He said: “The reason I joined My Club Betting was because I am so passionate about grassroots sport.|
|Seriously, his comments on WGP, MTV and PHE are clones! Paid derampers/hidden agendas/shorters with power to hold share price down (who are about to get their comeuppance!)/criminal marketmakers/been promised news etc etc.
I would mind except since his involvement in each, one is delisted, one has been in suspension 4 years and has liquidators in, the other looks rather unwell.|
|This time next year rodders....Or the year after.|