Ocman, what is your position here? Did you invest in this company at one time? Are you here for the entertainment factor? Are you short? WHAT'S UP!
Good Luck, mine were at 2.25. If anything, I am honest and do what research I can. Does not mean I can not come back in if things turn positive.
Some Positive Items to consider.
1. Patents are valid
2. Patents are valid and shared with USAA
3. USAA and Mitek sue TISA
4. Mitek shows some increase in profits, not just revenue
5. Mitek has another hit product
6. Mitek increase prices on there mobile check deposit pricing.
7. Mitek considers appointing a new CEO :)
I can recoup a 20-30% lose (should have been less, but as I mentioned, to much golfing) but it is difficult to recoup a 90-95% lose.
Jor, I really do not want to burst any bubbles, etc. But, consider that Mitek is suing TISA over the same 5 patents. It is very important to find out why the Judge found them to be non-infringing for USAA. Does this same logic/reasoning, whatever, apply to TISA. Be happy you invested in both
Maybe you could ask the law student. Blogs are set up to converse. And, if they are found invalid in the upcoming trial, how can they be valid for TISA.
Investors need to ask themselves.............
How did Mitek capture the appetites of the largest banks in the U.S.?
Could it be that they were the cheapest working system available and the banks made lots of money? The old anti-axiom of business...................... "lose a penny per widget/transaction and make it up on volume".
play4profits, not meaning to be sarcastic but, my question to you is.....
Explain to me what good the patents are to Mitek?
I do not know the particular's of the non-infringement judgement, but it appears that USAA was able to market and sell their own mobile check cashing system. Mitek sued (counter) them and recently lost the patent infringement portion of the suit.
Document 27 is one of several briefs during the early stages of the lawsuit. File date is 09/15/12 and is titled......
Defendant Mitek Systems, Inc.'s Reply Brief in support of (1) Renewed Rule 12(b)(3) Motion to Dismiss; and, in the alternative, (2) Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue
Mitek states some of the reasons for not having a change of venue.
Like I said earlier, was golfing to much and should have sold when the Judge ruled on the patents. That cost me a little more than wanted to risk. Now out of this investment, but, will follow for awhile. Hopefully, they will not press the issues and find the patents invalid and they will settle the contract dispute with USAA and move on with product development. They definitely cannot afford the legal fees involved.
Good Luck to ALL
Jor, Here is a statement taken from the Mitek site. Read it carefully, because this is a Mitek statement. Evaluate it versus the recent court rulings.
"On April 12, 2012, Mitek filed a lawsuit against USAA for patent infringement and breach of contract. Mitek believes USAA is infringing upon five of Mitek’s patents related to its Mobile Deposit® product. Mitek also believes that USAA breached the parties’ license agreement by using Mitek products beyond the scope of the agreed-upon license terms, and by disclosing confidential pricing and other confidential information for a Mitek legacy product installation in a lawsuit filed in Texas by USAA against Mitek. On July 18, 2012 Mitek filed a motion to amend its complaint to include the claims of defamation and violation of the Lanham Act for unfair business practices. These claims are based on the fact that USAA has falsely accused Mitek of misappropriating USAA’s proprietary and confidential information while under contract with USAA and claiming it as its own.
Mitek is seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and a finding that USAA willfully infringed Mitek’s patents, breached the parties’ license agreement, defamed Mitek and violated the Lanham Act."
1. First of all and most important, There is no patent infringement. Done deal.
2. Did they "falsely accuse Mitek of misappropriating USAA's proprietary and confidential information while under contract"? Maybe.....
3. How did USAA defame Mitek? (patents not infringed)
4. Look up definitions of the Lanham Act.
5. There is a chance that USAA breached the parties license agreement. That is why I suggested you read Document 27. And Texas law is different than Delaware law concerning license agreements/trade secrets.
Based on the information you have available to you, put yourself in the Judges shoes. What would you do-do?
I for one, cannot understand why Mitek is being so stubborn on this issue. Settle the dang thing and move on.
Nope, Often there is more than one reason, with reasons being, novelty, subject matter, obviousness and procedural errors.
Only a small percentage of patents issued are challenged in the courts (patents litigated). That percentage is around 2% and seems to be increasing.
Look it up. That's almost a coin toss. Not bad odds.
"Once a court concludes that inequitable conduct occurred, all the claims __ not just the particular claims in which the inequitable conduct is directly connected __ are unenforceable."
Is violation of duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent a form of Inequitable conduct?
kehrmin, you familiar with this statement. Think this applies to Mitek, etc?
Jorlev, I do not think that USAA removed its claims of inventorship. The ruling was made "without predudice" which means.... without detriment to any existing right or claim or they can refile.
Also, if you get a chance read Document 27 on PACER. It will yield some insight into the upcoming trial(s).
"The Lagham Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."
Based on the court ruling of no infringement on the patents and the above brief definition of the Lagham Act, I find it difficult to believe that the courts will rule for Mitek concerning the Lagham Act. Most of the USAA statements were relative to patents and without the patent infringement there seems to be related truths, etc.
IMO, the upcoming case will decide if the patents are valid and who owns/shares the patents. I do not think that USAA would want to find the patents invalid, but, they probably want to use them free and clear. Again, IMO, the most Mitek can hope for is to retain/share the patents with USAA and maybe get some late payments provided they can defend the contract/license agreements with USAA.
Also, Texas law is different than Delaware law and this case was probably lost when the venue was moved to Western Texas Court. Looks like this stock could be in for another big hit.
The only thing I smelled fishy was "myself" for spending to much time on the golf course and not paying attention to the court documents and the implications. I and the members of the MB should have picked up on that one and saved a few bucks along the way. :(