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

Augme Technologies, Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • itsahorserace itsahorserace Jan 20, 2013 6:31 PM Flag

    NY Rocket Docket

    Judge McMahon's ruling on "associated with" would appear to me to be pivotal to Augt's IP future. The court's have demonstrated that they will not rule for us as long as "embedded" is a term to be decided by markman ruling. As I understand it the 721 patent is a continuation patent on the 690 patent. This is a foundational patent. Were the judge to define "associated with" broadly this would give a huge boost to all IP negotiations with NPE's not to mention our chances of success in trial. Suddenly our suit against Yahoo, which turns on the word embedded, would take on new life. I can't remember what patent number we sued them under but they would know that we could either amend or refile under the 721 and have a real chance at winning in trial. Simply put, I believe a positive finding by McMahon would put our most powerful foundational patents back in play. Wait for growth, but pray for a good ruling. IMHO

    Sentiment: Hold

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • oldhauntsrforgottenghosts oldhauntsrforgottenghosts Jan 20, 2013 10:25 PM Flag

      Do a little homework, the word associated has already been defined in numerous other Markman rulings almost identical to what Augme requested. They have 17 issued patents, 91 pending and a few other international patents. Look at the one they got noa last week, major infringers on that patent too.

0.00-0.01(-82.31%)Jan 21 3:57 PMEST