IPR-battle-means;Infringers NO CHANCE TO WIN! I
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 343)
Posted On: 08/14/2018 10:53:09 AM
IPR-battle-means;Infringers NO CHANCE TO WIN!
It meant it then , it means it NOW!
The clear language of this Patent win shames Kranstat decision, that he didn't consider the evidence when making a mockery of his handling of this matter.
In the long run however, it will benefit SFOR in a huge way, as all the infringers are being swallowed up by bigger fish like Cisco, Singtel, Core Security, Thales , with billions of revs, rather let me more correctly say, billions of international revenues, resulting in immensely more licensing revenues as these huge fish become SFOR channel partners! This WILL happen anytime!
We are talking tens of MILLIONS of monthly revs and quicker settlements w/damages in the 100's of millions in damages when Kronstat's mess is cleaned up very soon by the appeals judges (AGAIN) he already has one dismissal overturned if my memory is correct.
KNOW WHAT YOU OWN here with SFOR!!!!!
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s argument and evidence is insufficient to explain and support a reason, with rational underpinning, to combine Feigen and Flanagan with Falk, and particularly, Falk’s teaching of sending a message with the authentication result to service node 26, to achieve the methods and apparatus in independent claims 1, 53, and 54 as well as the challenged claims that depend from claim 1.
Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that Feigen, Flanagan, and Falk render obvious claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54. III.
CONCLUSION In conclusion, for the reasons given, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims of the ’698 patent, claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54, are unpatentable.
Thus, we do not institute inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the asserted grounds. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted as to any claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 B2.
It meant it then , it means it NOW!
The clear language of this Patent win shames Kranstat decision, that he didn't consider the evidence when making a mockery of his handling of this matter.
In the long run however, it will benefit SFOR in a huge way, as all the infringers are being swallowed up by bigger fish like Cisco, Singtel, Core Security, Thales , with billions of revs, rather let me more correctly say, billions of international revenues, resulting in immensely more licensing revenues as these huge fish become SFOR channel partners! This WILL happen anytime!
We are talking tens of MILLIONS of monthly revs and quicker settlements w/damages in the 100's of millions in damages when Kronstat's mess is cleaned up very soon by the appeals judges (AGAIN) he already has one dismissal overturned if my memory is correct.
KNOW WHAT YOU OWN here with SFOR!!!!!
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s argument and evidence is insufficient to explain and support a reason, with rational underpinning, to combine Feigen and Flanagan with Falk, and particularly, Falk’s teaching of sending a message with the authentication result to service node 26, to achieve the methods and apparatus in independent claims 1, 53, and 54 as well as the challenged claims that depend from claim 1.
Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that Feigen, Flanagan, and Falk render obvious claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54. III.
CONCLUSION In conclusion, for the reasons given, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims of the ’698 patent, claims 1–17, 19–24, 53, and 54, are unpatentable.
Thus, we do not institute inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the asserted grounds. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted as to any claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,698 B2.
(10)
(0)