With Cisco acquiring Duo can Ropes and Gray advise

With Cisco acquiring Duo can Ropes and Gray advise Cisco regarding the Duo vs Strikeforce' infringement lawsuit? Keep in mind that Ropes and Gray is NOT involved with the Duo lawsuit. They were involved with the Duo led IPR challenge last year but not with any part of the litigation process the entire time that required information has been submitted to the courts. Duo and Centrify are Blank Rome's deals, not Ropes and Gray's. This is why, just as you see with the below 8/10/2018 court filing there are 6 Blank Rome attorney's listed and none from Ropes and Gray. Of course, Ropes and Gray does represent Strikeforce in the Gemalto and SecureAuth infringement cases. It has already been chronicled here on the Hangout that Cisco looks to Ropes and Gray to represent them and has used them to that end in the past. We know that Cisco wants to close the Duo deal in now less than two months. If Ropes and Gray is advising Cisco, based on what you read below from ZPaul's posts, what do you think they are telling them knowing that the PTAB, the Supreme Court and two premier Lawfirms are backing SFOR patents?


Plaintiff case 2:16-cv-03574-JMV-MF Document 52 Filed 08/10/18
BLANK ROME LLPA Pennsylvania LLP
Jonathan M. Korn New Jersey Resident Partner
Nicholas R. Tambone
Salvatore P. Tamburo
Charles R. Wolfe, Jr.
David E. Anderson
Ameya V. Paradise

300 Carnegie Center, Suite 220 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 750-7707
Attorney's for Plaintiff BLANK ROME LLPA Pennsylvania LLP


From Court submitted document:
Quote:
Incredibly, defendantSSS tells 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. 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 . That customer chose Duo’s product over StrikeForce’s. Id. at Were it not for Duo’s infringing product,
StrikeForce very likely would have made that sale since, at the time, only Duo and StrikeForce were being considered.

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. 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.

Posted On: 08/13/2018 3:44:39 PM
Post# of 36549
Posted By: zpaul

$SFOR TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARK FALK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ( Never Discussed Before, but... )

(Before Alice Popped up 12/12/17)

MR. TAMBURO( Blank Rome ): There are three defendants in this case -- well, three separate defendants. The cases have been consolidated for discovery. Trustwave, that case is very close to being dismissed. There's going to be a settlement agreement between StrikeForce, Duo, and Trustwave. And we'll be executing a dismissal probably within -- you know, a
couple of days or so.
THE COURT: Okay. I appreciate that.
MR. TAMBURO: So we'll be down to two --
THE COURT: Down to two cases. Yeah. How about the others? Do you want to settle the others?
MR. TAMBURO: We'd love to settle the others. You know, we've had some conversations, most recently with Centrify, and I think we've -- not able to come to an agreement.