Member Info for AlbertStroller

https://e-peas.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AppNote_EH_Photovoltaic_AEM10941.pdf

Not attempting a cross ramp here but I've wondered if the upcoming iot plans from syme for asset tracking will benefit cpx.

I was just looking at this too Onaplate. I don't think it is but happy to be proven wrong of course. There is a teardown at https://fccid.io/2AGYZ-PP02/Internal-Photos/int-photos-3655038 showing a cr2032 but as far as I can see, no supercap.

Good to see the rise today. Everything seems to be lining up nicely now. Been in this for 3 yrs come next January. Not as long as some but long enough to see a few characters come and go. GLA and have a great Xmas.

It won't work for some reason. For anyone that wants to see the article just replace the ****** with k a p l a n

lol OK, k a p l a n

Thanks for the link MrH. The ****** is ******

Yep. FB would love all the big data that's coming our way. That's where the real value lies.

Yeah that could happen lofas, but that would cost FB. Not the same as them muscling in and making apps obsolete with every update.

It's not really worrying. For FB to muscle into our market, they'd need the licenses - and that hasn't happened. If the record labels wanted FB involved it would have happened already. The fact they own large chunks of MVR themselves makes me think this is a strategic move to be the only player of note here.

In practice, most civil cases in the United States are settled after discovery.[19] After discovery, both sides often are in agreement about the relative strength and weaknesses of each side's case and this often results in either a settlement or summary judgment, which eliminates the expense and risks of a trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

There doesn't seem to be any information published re the AGM, except for the financial calendar on the cpx website which just gives a date.

Open - I don't think it matters whether it's an asset sale or stock sale. If you check out https://voidabletransactions.com/remedies-for-voidable-transactions-and-fraudulent-transfers.html it discusses the remedies available to a debtor. There you'll also see that I may have been wrong in stating that the action would not be against XS. Minefield eh?

Open, I don't believe further action will be against XS Power. It is likely that the transfer of assets was fraudulent. Google "Fraudulent Conveyance". There are lots of specialists lawyers who deal with these matters and we likely have a few of them on our legal team.

https://twitter.com/_AlexRodman/status/1308323797020409856?s=20

lol what a board! Thanks for the laughs

For anyone interested in Ioxus' unsuccessful appeal with the Patent Trial And Appeal Board -

https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2019-01178%2F8

It's IMO that we have the strongest of cases moving forward with Maxwell. Our action against them is covering the same patents, the same infringements and being overseen by the same court/judge. Every motion to dismiss has so far been denied. Save any Ally McBeal moment side swiping us, we should all be happy following the conclusion of this action.

Briefly -

IOXUS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
CAP-XX, LTD.,
Patent Owner.

Date: December 4, 2019

I. INTRODUCTION
Ioxus, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
claims 1–7, 9, 12–18, 21–29, 32–37, 40–45, 48–58, 61, and 62
(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,920,034 B2 (Ex. 1001,
“the ’034 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). CAP-XX, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed
a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).

The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may be
instituted only upon a showing that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the
petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2012). After considering the Petition, the
Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the
information presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner will prevail in challenging the patentability of the challenged
claims. We, therefore, decline to institute an inter partes review of
the ’034 patent.

Pap Mk6 for me then. Good luck.

Briefly..

CAP-XX alleges in the First Amended Complaint that it has "acquired and evaluated the following Maxwell products:

BCAP0003 P270 S01, BCAP0010 P270 S01, BCAP0025 P270 S01, BCAP0310 P270 T10, BCAP0350 E270 T11, BCAP0650 P270 K04, BCAP3000 P270 K04, BCAP0005 P270 S01, BCAP0050 P270 S01, and BCAP0100 P270 S07

and evaluated pertinent Maxwell product literature, to determine that the above products satisfy each and every limitation of at least Claims 1 and 51 of the [#]034 patent." D.I. 10 19. CAP-XX makes the same allegations—with some differences in the named products—for claim 13 of the #034 patent and claim 1 of the #600 patent.

________________

Claim 1 of the #600 patent --

1. A charge storage device comprising:

a first electrode;
a second electrode being opposed to and spaced apart from the first electrode;
a porous separator disposed between the electrodes;
a sealed package for containing the electrodes, the separator and an electrolyte in which the electrodes are immersed; and a first terminal and a second terminal being electrically connected to the first electrode and the second electrode respectively and both extending from the package to allow external electrical connection to the respective electrodes, wherein the gravimetric FOM of the device is greater than about 2.1 Watts/gram.