||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Worldlink Grp Share Discussion Threads
Showing 10901 to 10923 of 10925 messages
|Hats off to Ritches. Well played sir. #wolfofwallstreet|
|shocking........just shocking........but deja vue ......when's the listing LOL|
|My Club 2016 accounts now on companies house site. LOSSES OVER 4 MILLION UP FROM 2 MILLION 2015.
What a great business.|
|Until Denis the Menace trundled off with all the money this was simply a binary bet on the IP case, now it's a trudge into headwinds whistling 'round established betting models.
Newco needs to wash their hands of the history and demonstrate it has a BoD that can make business happen.|
|It's all going off now!
They are suing us for their attorney fees as an "exceptional case". Attorney fees for all Defendants for this to date will be a small fortune. Many hundreds of thousands, possibly higher.
"Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d), Defendants Bloomberg L.P. and Bloomberg Finance L.P.; Interactive Data Corporation; and The Charles Schwab Corp. and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants221;) hereby move for a declaration that this is an exceptional case and for an award of attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff."
They also state:
"I hereby certify that a reasonable effort has been made to reach agreement with
Plaintiff’s counsel on the matters set forth in the motion and that we have not been able to reach agreement."
So we have more interesting times ahead.
On the appeal, my understanding is we cannot present new evidence but have to show the Judge did not take account of specific existing evidence in his summary decision and that a matter of material uncertainty remains and a trial is therefore still required. Honestly, having read everything from both sides throughout the case, I think our chances of success are minimal to zero. Even if we are successful, it has no bearing on the case except we get to a trial to face the non-infringement argument as well as the arguments they have not needed yet for prior art, invalidity etc. At least it will be interesting for us to follow!
Maybe the the appeal might be there to pre-empt the attorney fee case. If Quest lose that it would ruin them surely although it is irrelevant to us here. Perhaps it is "you drop your attorney fee case, we drop our appeal, we all walk away."|
|The party is not over till the fat lady sings!|
|An appeal was inevitable really. Too much at stake to not even try appealing.Will they try to revisit the markman stage?And will a different judge be used if their appeal process is granted a run?|
|We have lodged an appeal:
NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Federal Circuit of 221 Memorandum Opinion,222 Order, Terminated Case,. Appeal filed by Quest Licensing Corporation. (Ormerod, Eve)|
|This has a link to the 8-page explanation for anyone interested in reading it.
|I recall one of the PACER documents recorded that the Defendant's expert witness stated there were several obvious ways to send the data without the symbol if someone chose to do it that way (but they didn't go down that route anyway)He gave two examples there and then. Must have been the discovery/cross examination hearings they had later in 2016. They also referenced it in the request for summary judgement documents, I guess to pre-empt or defend our earlier "nonsensical" argument.
The Judges explanation does specifically state he thought we were trying to persuade the Court to revisit claim construction. He didn't seem to like that.
I have seen references in other patent cases where Markman results were subsequently revised by a Judge but they appear to be right after the Markman itself not best part of a year later. I am not sure on timescales for appeals but that would be the thing to appeal if we can. Probably grasping at straws but it is worth checking.|
|Suspect Neil will be conjuring up his next adventure as we speak.|
|Seems nonsense for the crux of the defeat to be based on an interpretation of whether a part of the data is fixed or changing (ie the stock symbol). It's a nonsense in that of course that part has to be non-changing, as it is clearly a fixed reference to base all the changing data around.Feels as though this case was so important as it would've been groundbreaking and have stark implications for the future reporting/display of financial data if the case had been won.So there was no option but to defeat it by any means.Oh well, myclubbetting, let's get listed, lol, Neil, where are you fella?|
|lucky you, I spent all mine the last time that happened.|
|My WGP shares on my nominee account are showing a value of £62Million. Tried to sell them but wasn't having any of it. Was worth a try!!|
|Official confirmation today. The Defendant's motion for Summary Judgement is granted.
Our case has been dismissed.
The signed Order from Judge Sleet and explanatory Memorandum is on PACER plus a copy of the document submitted to the US Patent Office by the Courts.
Exact text of the order is:
"At Wilmington, this 19 day of January, 2017, consistent with the Memorandum issued
this same date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 193) is GRANTED; and
2. The above-captioned action [our case] is DISMISSED."
There is an eight page explanation. I will read it later.|
|Not heard and I only really read my PACER account so only find out when it is public record at the Court.My personal opinion is that we should have appealed the Markman. That was where the damage was done. If we can still do so time wise, that is best route. It might be too late though.Before we do anything, we need to see Judge Sleet's written order and opinion.|
|Hugo have you heard if Quest are going to appeal ? .|
|From Sierra World Equity website:
"My New Featured Pick is Quest Patent Research Corporation (QPRC), with booming revenues this nano-cap engages in the development, acquisition, licensing, and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Revenues have skyrocketed up over ONE MILLION Dollars and 387% in the last reported 9 month period!
Now with the company filing NEW patent infringement suits against some of the best known companies in the nation and globally like Toshiba and Panasonic revenues are projected to grow exponentially as the company continues to see an increase in enforcement revenues through judgments and settlements, compensation it receives for it's management fees and patent licensing fees. Licensing agreements have been signed with multiple companies including a major US auto manufacturer and Delta and SouthWest Airlines.
There is no dilution, QPRC is in the envious position of having outside companies lining up to provide financial backing! Despite this the company is completely and ridiculously undervalued trading in the sub-penny range! That is likely to change quickly as the company gets discovered.
Remember at any single moment the courts could award QPRC millions in damages and more multi-million dollar licensing fee agreements could be signed. Insiders are hanging onto their shares, they know whats coming, follow the insiders, now is the time to buy QPRC while it is under the radar and trading at historic lows!"|
|They had a promo news article in Sierra World Equity yesterday. QPRC worth a punt I think, they now charge fees so it's not all 'No Win/No Fee'.
They also have real revenue now from management fees. Tempted actually.|
|This time next year Rodders! What a pile of horse 5h1t|
|I copied the exact text on Pacer, not an interpretation.
"The Court will grant the motion and issue a written opinion in due course. The Jury Trial is removed from the Court's calendar."
Will "GRANT" not Will decide.
I would be interested to know what source is more "official" than the Court PACER system? PACER being the Court Electronic Records system provided by the US Federal Judiciary.
Perhaps it can be challenged or appealed so another throw of the dice. I would think we would state an intention to appeal it regardless.|