% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • luiz_1999_luiz luiz_1999_luiz Jul 31, 2009 6:33 PM Flag

    Wow Mecury in trouble

    Filed July 27, 2009 by Mecury's T. Maceiko

    I Theodore S. Maceiko, state as follows:
    ------then it skips down to---------
    I would competently testify thereto if called as a witness.
    1. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a July 10, 2009 press release printed from Mercury's web site:
    I. Mercury was aware of CTC's Patents when they issued, but mercury did not seek reexamination at that time.
    2. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an e-mail dated March 16, 2006 from Brian Brittsan (former CCO of CTC) to Edward Skonezny (associate of Mercury), in which Brittsan states to Skonezny that "regarding the patents... I know how to make the core(!!)"
    3. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of an e-mail dated June 7, 2007, i.e., or shortly after CTC's 319 patent issued. The e-mail, from Kevin Lusk of Faroex Ltd., which is a supplier of composite components, was copied to several Mercury representatives including Terry McQuarrie (Mercury's Chief Operating Officer), Ron Morris (Mercury's CEO), Michael Winterhalter (Mercury's VP Marketing) and Todd Harris (Mercur's President). When discussing options for a composite core, Mercury's representatives were advised that: "While not as elegant as a center core of S this should still get us around a potential patent issue by not having a 'carbon core' since we'd only be in effect using carbon in our core."

    II. Mercury Delayed discovery in this action while plotting its rejected petitions and motion to stay.

    5. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a prinout of the homepage of Mercury's website at CTC's copyrighted photograph is the picture at teh left end.
    6. CTC filed this action on March 3,2009 alleging infringement of its 319 and 162 patents, and immediately served the complaint. Mercury counsel, Brian Hafter, then contacted me requesting an extension of time for Mercury to respond to CTC's complaint.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Hey genius, maybe Mercury knew and knows it's patent's don't infringe and so, at the time CTC's were awarded they didn't think they needed to have them reexamined. It's kind of like the O'Bambi birth certificate thing... why actually produce it when you can continue to make the conspiracy folks look like kooks? After CTC filed their fishing expedition suit foolishly expecting to be granted unidirectional disclosure (demanding Mercury disclose their "stolen" trade secrets without specifying just what secrets they were supposed to have stolen) Mercury may have decided that a good defense strategy would be to invalidate as many of the CTC patent claims and to burn up as much of bEnron's time and money as possible just for good measure (and because he deserves it) and then proceed to litigate the remainder if bEnron is still in business by then. By that time fools like Craps and bEnron, so convinced that the invalidation efforts were because Mercury knew they were infringing rather than a clever red herring, will realize too late that the Mercury core is a new product improving upon Goldsworthy patents CTC does not own.

      It's just like Sepe stepping in it by claiming Mercury was offering cheap cable to State Grid when it will turn out to have been JFE, his partner, developing their own new core product right under his nose.

      You want to talk about stupid defenses? Why don't you drill into the FKI litigation that Craps has said all along would go nowhere yet has resulted in the insolvency of all the DeWind operations in Europe and put all the IP at risk of claw-back by the insolvency receiver as a billion dollar company has come across the Atlantic to attach their $7.7 million judgment (with additional claims over $50 million) against Craps' favorite deadbeats over here. When responding to one argument your heroic CTC attorneys whined, "we only agreed to provide access to the financial information, not to actually provide it" which the judges found to be "a distinction without a difference".

      As I said all along, nobody is better at making things personal than bEnron, and now he's got ten lawsuits swirling around him that are getting more personal each day as a result of his outrageous behavior. FKI doesn't want that $7.7 million anymore, they won't just accept "proceeds" from the imaginary DeWind sale Craps keeps promising month after month, they want to destroy bEnron and if anything will throw a wrench into any deal that might save his sorry ass. Same goes with Mercury,,, they might even be agreeable to a truce if bEnron would agree to just duke it out in the marketplace, but if this goes much further it will be too late... they will want to invalidate CTC's patents and take all their business because one must remember that it is bEnron who started this thing by trying gratuitously to screw ACTS and who has kept it personal all along.

    • One last and final thing.

      Skip down to page 13, and take a look at the exhibits that are provided.

      Mecury is in trouble, and cptc will win with there proof.

      • 1 Reply to luiz_1999_luiz
      • You referenced page 13, but keep reading to page 14.

        That's the most damning thing against CPTC and their management I've seen, after reading thru beaucoups of stuff.

        Now of course, it will be up to the Judge to decide the merits of the case, and separate the wheat from the chaff, but did you read para 5 of Brittsan's letter of March 16,2006?

        Louiz, if these facts are proven true, (and I emphasize- if they are proven true) then there might be some CPTC folks looking at jail time.

        Your posts might have actually done more harm than good to the CPTC cause.

        I suggest that others on this board read this filing in it's entirety, before making any stupid comments either way in this case.
        Wouldn't want any of my fellow posters to take something out of context, post it, then suffer the consequences.

        Nope, this is serious stuff folks!

        And back to my post of many months ago, maybe the only way I'll get to recover any of my losses in this stock will be to write a book about this saga. It sure has all of the requirements for a "Best Seller".

    • 27. Very little information has been added in the Corrected Petition that might address the Patent Office's rejections. Mercury relies on the same prior art in the Corrected Petition as it did in the original Petition. Pages 1-4 of both the original Petition and corrected Petition are virtually the same. Less than two pages of new information was added. Compare Exhibit 7, p.5 to Exhibit 9, pp. 5-7.

      28. The original petitions were rejected in part due to their failure to "clearly identify what is the new, non-cumulative technological teaching for each reference." Instead of meeting this requirement, the Corrected Petitions actually admit that one of the two primary references -- the 953 Tension CLamp Patent -- discloses only the same subject matter as a patent that was before the Examiner during the original prosecution -- U.S. Patent No. 5,437,899('''899 patent") to Quigley. The Corrected Petitions state" U.S. Pat. No. 5,437,899, just as '953 [Tension Clamp Patent], teaches a composite core." (Corrected Petition, p.6,para.2.) SINCE ON OF MERCURY'S TWO MAIN REFERENCES ADMITTEDLY DOES NOT CONTAIN "A NEW, NON-CUMULATIVE TEACHING," IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT THE PATENT OFFICE MAY AGAIN REJECT MERCURY'S PETITIONS FOR REEXAMINATION.

    • 25. Mercury then filed its Ex Parte application for an extensio of time to respond to discovery. The sole basis of Mercury's ex parte application was that Mercury had "filed" its Petitions with the Patent Office. However, Mercury's ex parte application did not advise the Court (Magistrate Judge Goldman) that its petitions had been rejected and the Mercury had not been accorded a filing date. After Mercury raised this issue in its opposition papers, Mercury filed a reply brief. In any event, Magistrate Goldman granted Mercury's ex parted application.

      26. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the substantive part of Mercury's original Petition regarding CTC's 319 patent, i.e., the Petition and Appendix A which contains Mercury's analysis. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Pattent Office's Notice of Failure to Comply with Ex Parte Reexamination Request Filing Requirements (37 CFR 1.510(c)) that served to reject that Petition. Attached as Exhibit 9 is true and correct copy of the substantive part of Mercury's Corrected Petition regarding CTC' 319 patents taht I received on Saturday, July 18. I have reviewed all these materials.

    • 19. Mercur's strategy in this action was now clear to me: Mercury sought to delay this action by requesting extensions of time and by postponing the start of discovery, while at the same time it was preparing its Petitions, and Motion to Stay. The parties then met and conferred on Mercury's Motion to stay on June 18. During the meet and confer on June 18, Mercury stated that it was ready to file its motion to stay two courts days later on May 22 and stated that it would file an ex parte application to forego the 20-day hold provided by Local Rule 7-3 if CTC did not agree to waive the 20-day hold. CTC could not agree to waive the 20-day hold. CTC could not agree, so Mercury filed its ex parte application on June 19. CTC opposed on June 20 and this Court DENIED THAT EX PARTE APPLICATION