Interesting exchange......
ZPaul Member Level Wednesday, 07/26/17 12:15:02 PM
Re: multivalue post# 174036
Post #
174037
of 174039 Go
All 7 are "Willfully", Fight is on for extracting 3x/Max Damages, SFOR/BR/RG wont settle for 10m (Settlement Conf on 01/30 is still in play)
multivalue Wednesday, 07/26/17 12:12:16 PM
Re: ZPaul post# 174035
Post #
174036
of 174039 Go
Ha! Nice. I think I posted him on here a couple months back.
This is nice from the first go around of Apple v. UoW Oct. 2015
Quote:
On Thursday, U.S. District judge William Conley ruled that Apple’s infringement wasn’t willful, according to the State Journal report. That saved Apple from potentially having to pay “triple damages,” a statute that allows a court to award a plaintiff three times the amount of actual financial damages.
http://www.xconomy.com/wisconsin/2015/10/16/a...ment-case/
Aren't all 7 of the current StrikeForce v. company's suits for "willful" infringing?
ZPaul Member Level Wednesday, 07/26/17 12:00:45 PM
Re: multivalue post# 174034
Post #
174035
of 174039 Go
https://www.ropesgray.com/biographies/p/steven-pepe.aspx
Quote:
Co-lead counsel representing StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. in a series of district court actions involving the assertion of its patents relating to out-of-band authentication techniques and systems. Current pending cases include actions in the District of Massachusetts (Gemalto, Inc.; Vasco Data Security) and the Eastern District of Virginia (SecureAuth Corp.; Entrust, Inc.).
Also representing StrikeForce in defense of one of its patents in inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
multivalue Wednesday, 07/26/17 11:59:41 AM
Re: ZPaul post# 174033
Post #
174034
of 174039 Go
Yup, and obviously some bad blood, as well as with Gemalto. Although that sounds even more toxic and like an old feud.
Back to the Apple/UoW suit. I wonder who represented who in that case and I also noticed it was file in 2014 and settled in Oct. 2015. Interesting timeline.
ZPaul Member Level Tuesday, 07/12/16 12:37:33 PM
Re: baldeagle1 post# 62085
Post #
62098
of 174039 Go
$SFOR PRAYER FOR RELIEF /DUO SECURITY
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, StrikeForce, respectfully requests this Court to:
A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff StrikeForce that the ’698 Patent was duly and legally issued, is valid, enforceable, and has been infringed, directly and/or indirectly, by Defendant Duo Security;
B. Enter judgment for Plaintiff StrikeForce that Defendant Duo Security has willfully infringed, and is willfully infringing, claims 53 and/or 54 of the ’698 Patent;
C. Order Defendant Duo Security to account in written form for and to pay to Plaintiff StrikeForce actual damages to compensate Plaintiff StrikeForce for Defendant Duo Security’s infringement of the ’698 Patent through and including the date of entry of the judgment on the jury’s verdict, including but not limited to, damages for lost profits and in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
D. Award Plaintiff StrikeForce treble damages due to Defendant Duo Security’s deliberate, willful, and knowing conduct;
E. Issue a preliminary injunction restraining Defendant Duo Security, its directors,officers, agents, employees, successors, subsidiaries, assigns, affiliates and all persons acting in privity or in concert or participation with any of them from the continued infringement, direct or contributory, or active inducement of infringement by others, of the ’698 Patent;
F. Issue a permanent injunction restraining Defendant Duo Security, its directors, officers, agents, employees, successors, subsidiaries, assigns, affiliates and all persons acting in privity or in concert or participation with any of them from the continued infringement, direct or contributory, or active inducement of infringement by others, of the ’698 Patent;
G. Direct Defendant Duo Security to file with this Court, and to serve on Plaintiff StrikeForce, a written report under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the injunction; Case 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 11 12
H. In lieu of a permanent injunction, order Defendant Duo Security to pay to Plaintiff StrikeForce monetary damages that will be suffered as a result of Defendant Duo Security’s continuing post-verdict infringement of the ’698 Patent by requiring Defendant Duo Security to take a compulsory license at a reasonable royalty rate to be determined by the Court on all products that it makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, imports, distributes, markets, or advertises that infringe the ’698 Patent until the expiration of the ’698 Patent, which royalty payments shall commence three months after entry of the judgment and shall be made quarterly thereafter, and shall be accompanied by an accounting of the sales of infringing products by the Defendant Duo Security;
I. Order such other measures in the form of audit rights, interest on late payments, and appropriate security to protect Plaintiff StrikeForce’s rights;
J. Order Defendant Duo Security to pay Plaintiff StrikeForce its costs, expenses, and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and
K. Grant Plaintiff StrikeForce such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper
ZPaul Member Level Wednesday, 07/26/17 12:15:02 PM
Re: multivalue post# 174036
Post #
174037
of 174039 Go
All 7 are "Willfully", Fight is on for extracting 3x/Max Damages, SFOR/BR/RG wont settle for 10m (Settlement Conf on 01/30 is still in play)
multivalue Wednesday, 07/26/17 12:12:16 PM
Re: ZPaul post# 174035
Post #
174036
of 174039 Go
Ha! Nice. I think I posted him on here a couple months back.
This is nice from the first go around of Apple v. UoW Oct. 2015
Quote:
On Thursday, U.S. District judge William Conley ruled that Apple’s infringement wasn’t willful, according to the State Journal report. That saved Apple from potentially having to pay “triple damages,” a statute that allows a court to award a plaintiff three times the amount of actual financial damages.
http://www.xconomy.com/wisconsin/2015/10/16/a...ment-case/
Aren't all 7 of the current StrikeForce v. company's suits for "willful" infringing?
ZPaul Member Level Wednesday, 07/26/17 12:00:45 PM
Re: multivalue post# 174034
Post #
174035
of 174039 Go
https://www.ropesgray.com/biographies/p/steven-pepe.aspx
Quote:
Co-lead counsel representing StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. in a series of district court actions involving the assertion of its patents relating to out-of-band authentication techniques and systems. Current pending cases include actions in the District of Massachusetts (Gemalto, Inc.; Vasco Data Security) and the Eastern District of Virginia (SecureAuth Corp.; Entrust, Inc.).
Also representing StrikeForce in defense of one of its patents in inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
multivalue Wednesday, 07/26/17 11:59:41 AM
Re: ZPaul post# 174033
Post #
174034
of 174039 Go
Yup, and obviously some bad blood, as well as with Gemalto. Although that sounds even more toxic and like an old feud.
Back to the Apple/UoW suit. I wonder who represented who in that case and I also noticed it was file in 2014 and settled in Oct. 2015. Interesting timeline.
ZPaul Member Level Tuesday, 07/12/16 12:37:33 PM
Re: baldeagle1 post# 62085
Post #
62098
of 174039 Go
$SFOR PRAYER FOR RELIEF /DUO SECURITY
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, StrikeForce, respectfully requests this Court to:
A. Enter judgment for Plaintiff StrikeForce that the ’698 Patent was duly and legally issued, is valid, enforceable, and has been infringed, directly and/or indirectly, by Defendant Duo Security;
B. Enter judgment for Plaintiff StrikeForce that Defendant Duo Security has willfully infringed, and is willfully infringing, claims 53 and/or 54 of the ’698 Patent;
C. Order Defendant Duo Security to account in written form for and to pay to Plaintiff StrikeForce actual damages to compensate Plaintiff StrikeForce for Defendant Duo Security’s infringement of the ’698 Patent through and including the date of entry of the judgment on the jury’s verdict, including but not limited to, damages for lost profits and in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
D. Award Plaintiff StrikeForce treble damages due to Defendant Duo Security’s deliberate, willful, and knowing conduct;
E. Issue a preliminary injunction restraining Defendant Duo Security, its directors,officers, agents, employees, successors, subsidiaries, assigns, affiliates and all persons acting in privity or in concert or participation with any of them from the continued infringement, direct or contributory, or active inducement of infringement by others, of the ’698 Patent;
F. Issue a permanent injunction restraining Defendant Duo Security, its directors, officers, agents, employees, successors, subsidiaries, assigns, affiliates and all persons acting in privity or in concert or participation with any of them from the continued infringement, direct or contributory, or active inducement of infringement by others, of the ’698 Patent;
G. Direct Defendant Duo Security to file with this Court, and to serve on Plaintiff StrikeForce, a written report under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the injunction; Case 2:16-cv-03571-JMV-MF Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 11 12
H. In lieu of a permanent injunction, order Defendant Duo Security to pay to Plaintiff StrikeForce monetary damages that will be suffered as a result of Defendant Duo Security’s continuing post-verdict infringement of the ’698 Patent by requiring Defendant Duo Security to take a compulsory license at a reasonable royalty rate to be determined by the Court on all products that it makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, imports, distributes, markets, or advertises that infringe the ’698 Patent until the expiration of the ’698 Patent, which royalty payments shall commence three months after entry of the judgment and shall be made quarterly thereafter, and shall be accompanied by an accounting of the sales of infringing products by the Defendant Duo Security;
I. Order such other measures in the form of audit rights, interest on late payments, and appropriate security to protect Plaintiff StrikeForce’s rights;
J. Order Defendant Duo Security to pay Plaintiff StrikeForce its costs, expenses, and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and
K. Grant Plaintiff StrikeForce such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper
