Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 3:08 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 6 hrs 22 mins

Recent

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

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Message Board

centurycom 208 posts  |  Last Activity: 5 hours ago Member since: Apr 17, 2008
  • Reply to

    Spherix v Verizon

    by centurycom Jan 10, 2015 1:33 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 10, 2015 2:02 PM Flag

    In law, a summary judgment (also judgment as a matter of law) is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case.

    In common-law systems, questions about what the law actually is in a particular case are decided by judges; in rare cases jury nullification of the law may act to contravene or complement the instructions or orders of the judge, or other officers of the court. A factfinder has to decide what the facts are and apply the law. In traditional common law the factfinder was a jury, but in many jurisdictions the judge now acts as the factfinder as well. It is the factfinder who decides "what really happened," and it is the judge who applies the law to the facts as determined by the factfinder, whether directly or by giving instructions to the jury.

    Absent an award of summary judgment (or some type of pretrial dismissal), a lawsuit will ordinarily proceed to trial, which is an opportunity for litigants to present evidence in an attempt to persuade the factfinder that they are saying "what really happened," and that, under the applicable law, they should prevail.

    The necessary steps before a case can get to trial include disclosing documents to the opponent by discovery, showing the other side the evidence, often in the form of witness statements. This process is lengthy, and can be difficult and costly.

    A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious. A party may also move for summary judgment in order to eliminate the risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery (i.e., by moving at the outset of discovery), by demonstrating to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried. If there is nothing for the factfinder to decide, then the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial? The moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in its favor. In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party that is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  • Reply to

    Spherix v Verizon

    by centurycom Jan 10, 2015 1:33 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 10, 2015 1:42 PM Flag

    Case 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB Document 224 Filed 01/10/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 5418
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division
    SPHERIX INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    VERIZON SERVICES CORP.; VERIZON SOUTH INC.;
    VERIZON VIRGINIA LLC;
    VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.; VERIZON FEDERAL INC.;
    VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC.; and
    MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
    Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-721-GBL-TCB
    Defendants.
    NOTICE OF HEARING
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 23, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, Plaintiff Spherix Incorporated will bring on for hearing its Combined Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Proposed Claim Constructions. This Motion will be heard in the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA.

    VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC.; and
    MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.

  • centurycom by centurycom Jan 10, 2015 1:33 PM Flag

    "MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM
    SPHERIX INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    VERIZON SERVICES CORP.; VERIZON SOUTH INC.;
    VERIZON VIRGINIA LLC;
    VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.; VERIZON FEDERAL INC.;
    VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC.; and
    MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
    Defendants

    IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PROPOSED CLAIM CON
    STRUCTIONS
    Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Agreed Protective Order entered in this matter on September 18, 2014 (Dkt. No. 52) (“Protective Order”), Plaintiff Spherix Incorporated (“Spherix”) respectfully moves this Court for entry of the attached Order permitting Spherix to file under seal Exhibits 18-40 to Spherix’s Combined Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Proposed Claim Constructions and portions of the Memorandum. Grounds and authorities for this Motion are set forth in Spherix’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Seal. In compliance with Local Rule 5, Spherix attaches a Proposed Order and is filing separately a Public Notice of Spherix’s Motion to Seal. Spherix requests that the Court

    retain sealed materials until forty-five (45) days after a final order is entered and requests that, unless the case is appealed, any sealed materials be returned to counsel for the filing parties.
    Dated: January 10, 2015
    Respectfully submitted:
    /s/ Nicholas V. Cumings
    Amy S. Owen (VSB 27692)
    Nicholas V. Cumings (VSB 82022) Attorneys for Plaintiff, Spherix Incorporated BrigliaHundley, P.C.
    3975 University Drive, Suite 100
    Fairfax, VA 22030
    Telephone: 703.883.9101
    Facsimile: 703.942.8092

  • Reply to

    Next week 0.85 then 0.13

    by brucemm Jan 9, 2015 2:34 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 10, 2015 12:48 PM Flag

    Starting to see some activity in some of the cases. That is a good thing. This coming week will be very interesting to see if that activity continues. Also, I am stoked to see thar we are involved with T. John Wards law firm in the Hauwei case. He is the former Judge from Marshal Texas who oversaw the Rocket Docket. Not only was he a Judge, but also an Engineer So if he sees value in the Hauwei suit that is very good. I believe these patents are very valuable and it is just a matter of time before we start to see some good revenue. We are involved with some very talented individuals and good management. This is a very risky investment, but it can also be very rewarding. I am prepared to lose all I have invested to see this through. AJMO and worth exactly what you paid for it.

  • Reply to

    Huawei

    by centurycom Jan 9, 2015 3:39 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 9, 2015 4:06 PM Flag

    The Ward/Smith law firm has the daddy as a partner and they are on our team.

  • Reply to

    New motion in Verizon case

    by centurycom Jan 9, 2015 3:54 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 9, 2015 3:59 PM Flag

    Things are starting to progress, finally

  • 203 01/08/15 01/09/15 So Ordered re 197 F Joint MOTION Proposed Scheduling Order for Pretrial Activities filed by Spherix Incorporated. Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 1/8/15. (gwalk, )

  • Reply to

    The markman hearing was Nov 21..

    by russ69v Jan 9, 2015 10:56 AM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 9, 2015 3:45 PM Flag

    Case 1:14-cv-00721-GBL-TCB Document 203 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 3862
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division
    Spherix Incorporated, Plaintiff,
    V.
    Case No. l:14.cv-721.GBL-TCB

  • centurycom by centurycom Jan 9, 2015 3:39 PM Flag

    Case 2:14-cv-00677-JRG-RSP Document 39 Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 277
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
    NNPT, LLC § Plaintiff, § § v. §
    § Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-677 HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO., §
    LTD.; HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., § LTD.; HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) § CO., LTD.; HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC.; § HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA INC.; § HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES § COOPERATIF U.A. and FUTUREWEI § TECHNOLOGIES, INC. §
    § Defendants. §
    PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DISCLOSURES
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 7, 2015, the following document was served on the person listed below in the manner indicated:
    1. NNPT, LLC’S Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.
    BY E-MAIL
    M. Scott Fuller Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 2200
    Dallas, TX 75201 214-740-8601 sfuller@lockelord.com
    Attorney for Defendants
    Dated: January 7, 2015
    /s/ Barry P. Golob by permission T. John
    Barry P. Golob
    ---------"-------------
    Also, famous former Judge T. John Ward from Marshal Texas now has a private practice and represents Spherix/NNPT team

  • Reply to

    Bottom in today at $.97

    by chmcparis Jan 8, 2015 4:36 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 8, 2015 9:35 PM Flag

    Charts mean nothing with this stock. It goes up with news, or events. Doesn't stay up because of no money yet. It's goes down in direct relation to the anxiety factor.

  • Reply to

    Bottom in today at $.97

    by chmcparis Jan 8, 2015 4:36 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 8, 2015 8:18 PM Flag

    They don't seem to be worried. I wonder if Spherix gives them the silent treatment also?

  • Reply to

    Judge Lynn and Claim Construction Opinion

    by fugitive6129 Jan 5, 2015 2:23 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 8, 2015 4:57 AM Flag

    I agree. When the log jam burst it will be significant for Spherix. Then we investors will have more decisions to make.

  • Reply to

    Judge Lynn and Claim Construction Opinion

    by fugitive6129 Jan 5, 2015 2:23 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 7, 2015 4:10 PM Flag

    We have to wait until the Judge rules on our motion. There are 29 patents involved in the case and cisco is trying to bring 2 of our FRANTZ patents for some reason. We claim that we have never asserted these two patents against Cisco we should be dismissed from Bockstar v Cisco. I don't know why theses two patents are holding up our suit against Cisco, or how they are relative to this case but somehow they seem to be a key component in both cases. Time will tell.

  • Reply to

    Judge Lynn and Claim Construction Opinion

    by fugitive6129 Jan 5, 2015 2:23 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 7, 2015 1:32 PM Flag

    "SO ORDERED, re (117 in 1:13-cv-02020-SLR-SRF, 71 in 1:14-cv-00114-SLR, 93 in 1:14-cv-00055-SLR) Stipulation For Temporary Stay, filed by Charter Communications Inc. , Knology Inc. , Cisco Systems Inc. , WideOpenWest Finance LLC, Arris Group Inc. , Cequel Communications LLC, ARRIS Enterprises Inc. , Cable One Inc. , ARRIS Solutions Inc. , General Instrument Corporation. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 1/6/2015. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-02020-SLR-SRF, 1:14-cv-00055-SLR, 1:14-cv-00114-SLR(fms)
    01/06/15 01/06/15 SO ORDERED, re 116 F Stipulation for Temporary Stay filed by Bockstar Technologies LLC. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 1/6/2015. (fms)"
    ------------------------------------
    Seems that the court is ignoring Spherix motion 115......hmmmmmm

  • Reply to

    What's the deal?

    by dusto742 Jan 5, 2015 1:52 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 6, 2015 9:43 AM Flag

    I think you should short more, that is, if you've got the Gonadazs.

  • centurycom centurycom Jan 6, 2015 7:27 AM Flag

    All the Federal money going into wasteful Green initiatives and Capstone still survives. Capstones's products have a nice niche market using the biggest growth energy source of the future, natural gas. Oil prices can rise, or fall and it really won't have an effect on Capstones market. They have a well placed ( pardon the pun ) product that has many advantages that have the ability to solve different sets of problems in multiple industries. That is what will enable Capstone to not only survive, but eventually thrive in a growing, plentiful, inexpensive, non-dependent energy production segment. You have a real gem when you find a well engineered product that can make money out of what once was waste. Capstone is the future, and the future is now.

  • Reply to

    Dear Dumb People

    by smileaway9 Jan 5, 2015 9:59 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 6, 2015 6:58 AM Flag

    Another Greenie drowning in cheap oil and not lovin' it.

  • Reply to

    Judge Lynn and Claim Construction Opinion

    by fugitive6129 Jan 5, 2015 2:23 PM
    centurycom centurycom Jan 5, 2015 4:47 PM Flag

    Case 1:13-cv-02020-SLR-SRF Document 115 Filed 11/26/14 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 8140
    Court needs to rule on the above in the Bockstar v Cisco case in which Cisco is attempting to join Spherix

  • centurycom centurycom Jan 2, 2015 2:07 PM Flag

    Anonymous. They always are.

  • Perhaps the news we are waiting for is being, or will be sent somewhere else. Yahoo, the new guy you hired is screwing up. Hmmmm.

ARNA
4.56-0.21(-4.40%)Jan 28 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Facebook, Inc.
NASDAQWed, Jan 28, 2015 4:00 PM EST
McDonald's Corp.
NYSEWed, Jan 28, 2015 4:00 PM EST
Exelixis, Inc.
NASDAQWed, Jan 28, 2015 4:00 PM EST