DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTIONTO DISMISS OR TRANSFER FOR IMPROPER VENUEIN VIEW OFTC HEARTLANDPLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, July 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., or soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, Defendants Duo Security Incorporated, Centrify Corporation, and Trustwave Holdings, Inc.
Did you notice it's Trustwave attorney that filed today & not DUO's Lead Attorney as the case was for past several months. Trustwave is panicking now and most likely trying to take a lead ( Last Ditch Effort) & is on the hook with DUO with their web of lies. With SFOR's Dr. Sherman's deposition coming tomorrow, I bet CAN of worms will be made public as done last week for DUO & Trustwave i.e
Trustwave/DUO/From recent docket filing:
Quote:
By way of example, defendant Trustwave has produced only 25 documents thus far in this case.
Trustwave recently told StrikeForce the reason it does not have much responsive information is because its relationship with defendant Duo ended in 2013, referring to a first OEM agreement. Exhibit 1 at 2-3.
But Trustwave never told StrikeForce that it re-entered into a second OEM agreement with Duo in 2014. That 2014 OEM agreement was located in Duo’s production. Trustwave never produced the 2014 OEM agreement to StrikeForce. Id. at 1-2.
When StrikeForce brought the 2014 OEM agreement to Trustwave’s attention, Trustwave suddenly was able to locate responsive documents. Yet, Trustwave still has not produced these documents, and now cites the lack of an ESI protocol agreement as its excuse.
Since last December, when StrikeForce served its discovery requests, Trustwave never requested an ESI protocol agreement, nor did it object to StrikeForce’s discovery requests based on the lack of an ESI protocol agreement.
Now that it finally located some responsive documents—only after StrikeForce threatened to seek sanctions for its apparently hiding the 2014 OEM agreement—Trustwave crafted yet another excuse to further curtail StrikeForce’s discovery.
StrikeForce is entitled to receive the requested documents and then it can schedule a deposition.
DUO & TRUSTWAVE from recent Docket, Dirty Games.
Quote:
DUO playing dirty
Quote:
Incredibly, defendants tell this Court that StrikeForce does not compete with defendants for sales. Brief at 9. The opposite is true; StrikeForce competed head-to-head with Duo several times and lost. Waller Decl. at ¶ 21. For example, StrikeForce and Duo were both competing for sales to the Bechtel company. Id. StrikeForce was attempting to sell its ProtectID® product and Duo was attempting to sell its infringing product. Id. at ¶¶ 20-22. That customer chose Duo’s product over StrikeForce’s. Id. at ¶ 21. Were it not for Duo’s infringing product,
Case 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF Document 71 Filed 06/05/17 Page 10 of 29 PageID:StrikeForce very likely would have made that sale since, at the time, only Duo and StrikeForce were being considered. Id.
3 StrikeForce later learned that, during the negotiations, Duo cautioned Bechtel to check StrikeForce’s financials before purchasing StrikeForce’s product, and that StrikeForce was essentially out of money. Id. at ¶ 22.
In other words, not only is defendant Duo willfully infringing the ’698 patent, but it uses its strong financial position—a position gained through its infringement—against StrikeForce to undermine StrikeForce’s sales opportunities. This type of egregious activity will only continue, and likely worsen, during a stay as it would embolden defendants to continue infringing and interfering with StrikeForce’s sales opportunities. Notably, defendants do not offer to stay their sales efforts for the next 17 months. To the contrary, by the end of this year, Duo’s annual sales could reach up to $170M. During a stay, Duo’s annual sales could increase to more than $350M.
All Out efforts by 3 Defendents i.e. Centrify, DUO & TRUSTWAVE before the Deposition of Dr. Sherman Tomorrow i.e. 06/20/17 i.e.
Did you notice it's Trustwave attorney that filed today & not DUO's Lead Attorney as the case was for past several months. Trustwave is panicking now and most likely trying to take a lead ( Last Ditch Effort) & is on the hook with DUO with their web of lies. With SFOR's Dr. Sherman's deposition coming tomorrow, I bet CAN of worms will be made public as done last week for DUO & Trustwave i.e
Trustwave/DUO/From recent docket filing:
Quote:
By way of example, defendant Trustwave has produced only 25 documents thus far in this case.
Trustwave recently told StrikeForce the reason it does not have much responsive information is because its relationship with defendant Duo ended in 2013, referring to a first OEM agreement. Exhibit 1 at 2-3.
But Trustwave never told StrikeForce that it re-entered into a second OEM agreement with Duo in 2014. That 2014 OEM agreement was located in Duo’s production. Trustwave never produced the 2014 OEM agreement to StrikeForce. Id. at 1-2.
When StrikeForce brought the 2014 OEM agreement to Trustwave’s attention, Trustwave suddenly was able to locate responsive documents. Yet, Trustwave still has not produced these documents, and now cites the lack of an ESI protocol agreement as its excuse.
Since last December, when StrikeForce served its discovery requests, Trustwave never requested an ESI protocol agreement, nor did it object to StrikeForce’s discovery requests based on the lack of an ESI protocol agreement.
Now that it finally located some responsive documents—only after StrikeForce threatened to seek sanctions for its apparently hiding the 2014 OEM agreement—Trustwave crafted yet another excuse to further curtail StrikeForce’s discovery.
StrikeForce is entitled to receive the requested documents and then it can schedule a deposition.
DUO & TRUSTWAVE from recent Docket, Dirty Games.
Quote:
DUO playing dirty
Quote:
Incredibly, defendants tell this Court that StrikeForce does not compete with defendants for sales. Brief at 9. The opposite is true; StrikeForce competed head-to-head with Duo several times and lost. Waller Decl. at ¶ 21. For example, StrikeForce and Duo were both competing for sales to the Bechtel company. Id. StrikeForce was attempting to sell its ProtectID® product and Duo was attempting to sell its infringing product. Id. at ¶¶ 20-22. That customer chose Duo’s product over StrikeForce’s. Id. at ¶ 21. Were it not for Duo’s infringing product,
Case 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF Document 71 Filed 06/05/17 Page 10 of 29 PageID:StrikeForce very likely would have made that sale since, at the time, only Duo and StrikeForce were being considered. Id.
3 StrikeForce later learned that, during the negotiations, Duo cautioned Bechtel to check StrikeForce’s financials before purchasing StrikeForce’s product, and that StrikeForce was essentially out of money. Id. at ¶ 22.
In other words, not only is defendant Duo willfully infringing the ’698 patent, but it uses its strong financial position—a position gained through its infringement—against StrikeForce to undermine StrikeForce’s sales opportunities. This type of egregious activity will only continue, and likely worsen, during a stay as it would embolden defendants to continue infringing and interfering with StrikeForce’s sales opportunities. Notably, defendants do not offer to stay their sales efforts for the next 17 months. To the contrary, by the end of this year, Duo’s annual sales could reach up to $170M. During a stay, Duo’s annual sales could increase to more than $350M.
All Out efforts by 3 Defendents i.e. Centrify, DUO & TRUSTWAVE before the Deposition of Dr. Sherman Tomorrow i.e. 06/20/17 i.e.
2
