You might have missed some posts on this subject

You might have missed some posts on this subject

re Kronstat , I forgot who posted the background his family's ties to cyber security companies in his areas there seemed to be I think a connection to Sec Auth, I believe was Affinity security or something like it. and the timing of Judge K's 101 decision and the coincidence of the timing of Sec Auth who were in negotiations to sell their company to Core authority at the SAME time.

It makes it appear on the surface that Sec Auth couldn't afford SFORs damages and rec revs and needed time to sell their company, so that the company to survive through it being sold without a judgement hanging over it during the sale, then the owners could pull out their money, but they needed time evidently to complete the sale. Which did occur in the months after SFORs Patent appeal.

What a coincidence that the alice 101 decision provided that time, and if the decision was appealed , it would be kicked up to appeals court to sort it out. All the while the Sec Auth and Core Auth purchase was being completed. What a wonderful coincidence for Sec Auth.
Another of Judge K's Alice 101 decisions was also appealed , resulting in it being kicked up to appeals via an Alice 101 and it was reversed.

I don't think anything will come of the lingering ste of impropriety/conflict of interest for Judge K in a case if the family background is true then he probably should have recused himself from. SFOR/Ropes and Gray will not waste time or money litigating Kronstat IMO.

Ropes and Gray and SFOR are more concerned with filleting huge slices of choice whale meat in damages and recurring revs from massive infringing WHALES. (not killing the infringing whales, they can still swim )

However the absurdity of Judge K's not considering the strong evidence of the validity of SFORs from the patent experts during the PTAB from Patent Judges etc in favor of a ancient greek argument resulting in a Alice 101 dismissal certainly raises eyebrows and creates strong suspicion surrounding this judgement.Why did he virtually ignore or not consider SFORs PTAB win/decision won within the same year fro the Duo, Centrify Vasco PTAB? How could he have missed that?

It will be interesting to hear/read the appeal judges comments on this lack of interest in SFORs PTAB validation of SFORs patent.

I am sure the District Appeal judges will have plenty to comment on regarding Judge Kronstat 101 decision and his legal basis for making this decision.