IMO R&G messed up appeal- in the end we win! Wh
Post# of 82690
(Total Views: 595)
Posted On: 04/10/2019 11:15:31 PM
IMO R&G messed up appeal- in the end we win!
Why do I say that ?
Well the using of the precedent by R&G from another case in which the Judge who wrote the opinion on that case, to our surprise sat on SFORs appeal .
That precedent in retrospect, turned out to be a Trojan Horse. To be fair R&G had Alice 101 against them. However with the firepower they had in SCOTUS opinion on PTABS wins, the PTAB wins etc they might have won on the strength of SFORs strong patent. The issue wasn't that our process took place exclusively within a computer, it was a process that improved on another invention to prevent a specific computer problem by intercepting a password user login and through an outside of computer means, through text or call or biometric means they contacted the user, then when user is confirmed, then the computer allowed the user to access the computer.
The the Trojan Horse aka "precedent" was for a anti virus software program installed "in the computer" in the BIOS and was able to prevent a specific virus.
Only problem is our patent was an improvement over a previous invention, that went "outside the computer" to solve a specific computer problem. Not an inside job, not an exact match. The Judge who wrote the opinion for the precedent caught on, saw the difference ,he knew the ins and outs of the opinion he wrote and that now became the issue.
So the argument from Sec Auth is OOBA is not "within the computer" it "operates outside" the computer and guess what, the judges went along with it.
Did you notice how the storied Howard D was flustered and stumble on his words afterward when the judges grilled him on that point. He appeared to sound like, well, like he wasn't prepared,for that line of reasoning. Then he fell back and explained what our patent actually does.
R&G fell into a masterfully laid trap , a trap that they themselves laid down and willingly jumped into.
You have to ask yourself what might have happened if they argued what our patent actually does as mentioned above, without the supposed precedent.
I wonder how Blank Rome felt as they witnessed it all unfold, I am sure they supported R&G in their strategy , after all its R&G. However I wonder if they were livid over how it turned out, as they actually wrote our patent and probably knew how to argue it inside and out, perhaps even better than R&G?
We are going after SEC Auth no question and I firmly believe we will win. IN either Supreme court or appeals court before all 12 judges with the help of congress, or a precedent from the SCOTUS. IMO
Blank Rome seem to be viewed as the lesser of the companies, however they are no slouch in litigating intellectual identity protection as well, after all they stood up to Microsoft, that didn't turn out so bad. I new appreciation for Blank Rome they have been with SFOR from the start , writing their patents and working on contingency! They had DUO Centrify and Gemalto? the other company ( can't remember) on their knees.
Just a thought!
SFOR long and strong!
Why do I say that ?
Well the using of the precedent by R&G from another case in which the Judge who wrote the opinion on that case, to our surprise sat on SFORs appeal .
That precedent in retrospect, turned out to be a Trojan Horse. To be fair R&G had Alice 101 against them. However with the firepower they had in SCOTUS opinion on PTABS wins, the PTAB wins etc they might have won on the strength of SFORs strong patent. The issue wasn't that our process took place exclusively within a computer, it was a process that improved on another invention to prevent a specific computer problem by intercepting a password user login and through an outside of computer means, through text or call or biometric means they contacted the user, then when user is confirmed, then the computer allowed the user to access the computer.
The the Trojan Horse aka "precedent" was for a anti virus software program installed "in the computer" in the BIOS and was able to prevent a specific virus.
Only problem is our patent was an improvement over a previous invention, that went "outside the computer" to solve a specific computer problem. Not an inside job, not an exact match. The Judge who wrote the opinion for the precedent caught on, saw the difference ,he knew the ins and outs of the opinion he wrote and that now became the issue.
So the argument from Sec Auth is OOBA is not "within the computer" it "operates outside" the computer and guess what, the judges went along with it.
Did you notice how the storied Howard D was flustered and stumble on his words afterward when the judges grilled him on that point. He appeared to sound like, well, like he wasn't prepared,for that line of reasoning. Then he fell back and explained what our patent actually does.
R&G fell into a masterfully laid trap , a trap that they themselves laid down and willingly jumped into.
You have to ask yourself what might have happened if they argued what our patent actually does as mentioned above, without the supposed precedent.
I wonder how Blank Rome felt as they witnessed it all unfold, I am sure they supported R&G in their strategy , after all its R&G. However I wonder if they were livid over how it turned out, as they actually wrote our patent and probably knew how to argue it inside and out, perhaps even better than R&G?
We are going after SEC Auth no question and I firmly believe we will win. IN either Supreme court or appeals court before all 12 judges with the help of congress, or a precedent from the SCOTUS. IMO
Blank Rome seem to be viewed as the lesser of the companies, however they are no slouch in litigating intellectual identity protection as well, after all they stood up to Microsoft, that didn't turn out so bad. I new appreciation for Blank Rome they have been with SFOR from the start , writing their patents and working on contingency! They had DUO Centrify and Gemalto? the other company ( can't remember) on their knees.
Just a thought!
SFOR long and strong!
(12)
(0)