Member Info for sellonnews

TechTom,

A more recent update, unfortunately a tad longer than your link (smiley)

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Revised-Stanford-August-4-2016-Class-Presentation.pdf

Enjoy
.
.
GL
.

JamesHinvest, all the Judge is doing tomorrow is determining the Schedule going forward, for example, when the parties have to submit the "teaching" materials: expert testimonies: proposed date of the Markman hearing. The actual Markman Hearing will probably be in May/June 2019 depending on the Court diary.
.
.

Everything depends on the Markman results, and from previous investment in US companies involved in patent litigation years ago nothing should be taken for granted - the legal meaning given to words is at the sole discretion of the Judge and until this is known (for Plaintiff, for Defendant. a mixture of both, and even their own interpretation) it is impossible to predict.

The two options available to the Defendants once the Markman has concluded is settlement, or continue to trial, if the latter it could be some time in 2020, but the decision can be appealed adding further time to the case.

Sorry I can't be more precise, it isn't an exact science.
.
.

The Judge will confirm the proposed Order submitted on August 30 as it is or with minor amendments, subsequent to which the case will continue within the proposed timeline. Nothing more, nothing less.
.
.
GL
.

JamesHinvest, indeed you did, but a mere 100% increase to 17p would still hugely undervalue the claim made by WelshVagabond imo.

Let's wait for tomorrow's directions from the Judge Connolly in Delaware to see if he orders continuation as jointly submitted last week.
.
.

WelshVagabond, if what you are suggesting is correct, why is the share price languishing in low pence rather than multiple pounds?

Think about it.
.
.

I recommend printing the contents (18 pages) of the following document:

https://www.arelaw.com/downloads/ARElaw_PracticeNote101511.pdf

parkez,

The impression given about Cap-XX patents superseding and invalidating all supercapicitor patents is erroneous, despite what WelshVagabond states as fact. The USPTO would simply not issue patents in conflict with prior art, and, as stated previously, Cap-XX's IP lawyers wouuld bring to the attention of the examiners any duplication of claims - one of the causes of applicatioins being discontinued subsequent to filing.
.
.
DYOR
.
GL
.

If you had read the Court Filings you'd be aware of the Markman date. Further, the Markman does not determine the "probable outcome" which is left to the Jury, guided by the legal definition of words decided by the Judge.

That Maxwell use a similar terminology means absolutely nothing in supporting/defending an infringement claim.

IP lawyers will be examining in detail the filings and advising potential licensees accordingly. Is there still a "First Mover" advantage?
.
.

PS I don't believe there'll be a settlement any time soon.
.
.

If one wants to read the Court filings in full, sign up for PACER:

https://www.pacer.gov/
.
.
GL
.

#HeliosAdvanced takes it to the skies! The system's recent installation into the light aircrafts of a flight school has allowed for their #monitoring. The #Helios is made essential in analyzing the flight and in reviewing the pilot’s performance. https://www.starcomsystems.com/helios/ #Starcom
.
.
GL
.

For information:

https://www.upcounsel.com/markman-hearing
.
.
GL
.

The current litigation regards.

"at least Claims 1 13 and 51 of the ’034 Patent", and

"at least Claim 1 of the ’600 Patent"

The Markman will determine the legal meaning of these Claims from which any further action will follow - it is not a foregone conclusion based on the current non-legal definition within the Claims.
.
Tech Tom, I recall being the first to post about the current patent application to graham-wales on this board (June 2016), and the general consensus was that it would be either extremely difficult or very costly to circumvent it. Cap-XX will know of all representations made on the application, and have the opportunity to discuss these with the examiners. What will follow, if granted, is a watertight and comprehensive patent, far superior to anything that Cap-XX currently have imo.

.
GL
.

Is it being suggested that all of these granted patents somehow infringe Cap-XX? If so, the USPTO haven't got a clue about IP, which I doubt.

https://tgs.freshpatents.com/Supercapacitor-bx1.php
.
.
DYOR
.
GL
.

Part of the reason for publishing patent applications is to enable patent holders to notify the USPTO of any potential infringement of existing claims. This, along with the thorough USPTO investigation, ensures that any new patent issued for "supercapcitors" is unique.

As there are multiple patents for supercapacitors, the suggestion that Cap-XX hold the "master patent" is somewhat generous imo

However, Publication number: 20160146173,
Control System for an Automotive Engine and a Method of Controlling an Automotive Engine, is extremely comprehensive and could result in multiple royalties if granted imo.
.
.
GL
.

All products featured on this datasheet are covered by the following U.S. patents and their respective foreign counterparts:
6525924, 6643119, 7295423, 7307830, 7342770, 7352558, 7384433, 7492571, 7508651, 7791860, 7791861, 7883553, 7935155, 8072734, 8279580, and patents pending.

http://www.maxwell.com/images/documents/Flash_Memory_Application%20Brief_3000690_EN_1.pdf
.
.

On receipt of an application it is assigned to one or two examiners, competent in the subject matter.

The applicant must disclose all prior art and patents granted eg "energy storage devices" and explain what differentiates the application - novelty. Which is why Cap-xx was referenced by Maxwell.

The process subsequent to receipt of application (which is why it can take several years before a patent is granted):

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s704.html#d0e55732

Enjoy (smiley)
.
.
GL
.

Not granted yet but moving along the process. If it were to be granted, probably in twelve to eighteen months. The USPTO will be checking any potential prior art claims, and in discussion with Cap xx how the application is unique.
.
.

From memory, this was favourably discussed in June 2016:

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20160146173

It is totally comprehensive!
.
.
GL
.

For your perusal:

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/12829402
.
.
GL
.