Go SFOR, no stay should be granted.... this is pa
Post# of 82672
(Total Views: 189)
Posted On: 06/06/2017 8:52:21 AM
Go SFOR, no stay should be granted....
this is part of SFOR's reasoning for the injunction
Quote:
A. A Stay Would Unduly Prejudice StrikeForce and Provide Defendants with a Tactical Advantage
1. The parties are competitors and StrikeForce seeks a permanent injunction
Defendants assert that a stay would not unduly prejudice StrikeForce because damages would simply accrue during the stay. Brief at 6. This is a typical argument in favor of a stay when the plaintiff is not a competitor, but rather, is a non-practicing entity (“NPE”), also known as a “patent troll.” When a plaintiff is not selling any product covered by its patent, the parties are not competitors in the market and the plaintiff is less likely to be unduly prejudiced by staying the case since monetary damages would simply continue to accrue during the stay.
But those are not the facts in this case. Here, StrikeForce does sell a product covered by its ’698 patent, called ProtectID®. Defendants, too, sell products that infringe the ’698 patent. Those are the accused products in this case. Contrary to the impression defendants attempt to create, the parties here are direct competitors in the marketplace for multifactor authentication. Waller Decl. at ¶ 18. Every day that passes is another day that defendants gain market share at the expense of StrikeForce, the rightful owner of the very technology behind defendants’ successful products
this is part of SFOR's reasoning for the injunction
Quote:
A. A Stay Would Unduly Prejudice StrikeForce and Provide Defendants with a Tactical Advantage
1. The parties are competitors and StrikeForce seeks a permanent injunction
Defendants assert that a stay would not unduly prejudice StrikeForce because damages would simply accrue during the stay. Brief at 6. This is a typical argument in favor of a stay when the plaintiff is not a competitor, but rather, is a non-practicing entity (“NPE”), also known as a “patent troll.” When a plaintiff is not selling any product covered by its patent, the parties are not competitors in the market and the plaintiff is less likely to be unduly prejudiced by staying the case since monetary damages would simply continue to accrue during the stay.
But those are not the facts in this case. Here, StrikeForce does sell a product covered by its ’698 patent, called ProtectID®. Defendants, too, sell products that infringe the ’698 patent. Those are the accused products in this case. Contrary to the impression defendants attempt to create, the parties here are direct competitors in the marketplace for multifactor authentication. Waller Decl. at ¶ 18. Every day that passes is another day that defendants gain market share at the expense of StrikeForce, the rightful owner of the very technology behind defendants’ successful products
(1)
(0)Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links
WORDS TO LIVE BY:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Get .... PrivacyLok https://cyberidguard.com/
Try SafeVchat: https://cyberidguard.com/
My comments are only my opinion and are not to be used for investment advice.
Please conduct your own due diligence before choosing to buy or sell any stock.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Get .... PrivacyLok https://cyberidguard.com/
Try SafeVchat: https://cyberidguard.com/
My comments are only my opinion and are not to be used for investment advice.
Please conduct your own due diligence before choosing to buy or sell any stock.
Scroll down for more posts ▼