That Basher also tried to claim there was somethin
Post# of 82687
Posted On: 10/03/2016 11:13:33 PM
Re: TheSummerMan #277
That Basher also tried to claim there was something new
in the Counter Claim by Trustwave to bring doubt on the
SFOR lawsuit, but he got caught red handed when the
evidence he presented was the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE
MICROSOFT used in their counter claim and then of course
MICROSOFT SETTLED with SFOR !! LOL !!
Here's the same evidence TRUSTWAVE is trying to use
that MICROSOFT tried to use.
Quote:
Case 1:15-cv-00465-RGA Document 9 Filed 12/16/15 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 141
THIRD DEFENSE (Non-infringement)
91. Microsoft has not infringed, directly or indirectly, or made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale any technology that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the Patents either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents.
FOURTH DEFENSE (Invalidity)
92. Upon information and belief, one or more claims of the Patents are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112./quote]
Here you go, it has been tried before, the same lawyers that represented MICROSOFT are also representing one of the defendants. And oh btw SFOR lawyers are so confident they
will get a SETTLEMENT or WIN at trial they are taking this
case on CONTINGENCY BASIS meaning SFOR doesn't
pay them a cent until they WIN something !
in the Counter Claim by Trustwave to bring doubt on the
SFOR lawsuit, but he got caught red handed when the
evidence he presented was the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE
MICROSOFT used in their counter claim and then of course
MICROSOFT SETTLED with SFOR !! LOL !!
Here's the same evidence TRUSTWAVE is trying to use
that MICROSOFT tried to use.
Quote:
Case 1:15-cv-00465-RGA Document 9 Filed 12/16/15 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 141
THIRD DEFENSE (Non-infringement)
91. Microsoft has not infringed, directly or indirectly, or made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale any technology that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the Patents either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents.
FOURTH DEFENSE (Invalidity)
92. Upon information and belief, one or more claims of the Patents are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112./quote]
Here you go, it has been tried before, the same lawyers that represented MICROSOFT are also representing one of the defendants. And oh btw SFOR lawyers are so confident they
will get a SETTLEMENT or WIN at trial they are taking this
case on CONTINGENCY BASIS meaning SFOR doesn't
pay them a cent until they WIN something !
(0)
(0)