LML Payment Systems Inc. (Nasdaq : LMLP)

[Seven Of Nine]

Ci ho messo un cipetto oggi, gli oscillatori appaiono scarichi e la pressione in vendita sembra essersi attenuata dopo la grossa correzione..

 

[Grecale]

Ciao Davide , sono fuori e non posso mettere chart cmq la base è 3-3.20, con stop rigidissimo sulla perdita dei 3$

C'è una contesa legale in atto per i brevetti, questa la causa del downtrend, la news è del 15 marzo, discreta reazione sui 3$ ma forte pressione in vendita, da monitorare con stop tassativo sulla perdita dei 3$ al close

-------

LML – Patent Rejected – Case Closed! | Reexam-Watch

LML – Patent Rejected – Case Closed!
Posted on March 15, 2011 by Ed

The sole patent (RE40,220) asserted by LML Patent Corp. against a long list of financial service companies got an Action Closing Prosecution ACP(ACP) from the USPTO on March 14. The ACP maintained multiple rejections for each reexamined claim. The Examiner was unconvinced by the evidence provided by LML noting some discrepancies between the dates on documentary evidence and the supposed conception date. The examiner also dismissed declarations submitted by LML as flawed.

All claims in reexam were already rejected in the First Office Action, in July 2010, a rejection which caused the company’s stock to plummet over 30% in one day. However, LML continued to get some settlements from defendants, including a recent settlement with Paypal. It appears that LML settled with Paypal just in time (better cash that check quick). Given the failure of LML’s arguments during prosecution at the CRU, and the slim odds of having the rejection overturned at the BPAI, LML’s claims (and the litigation based on asserting those claims) would appear to be in great peril.

Even if LML wins in court, appeals to the CAFC from the court cases and from the USPTO are likely. This is a scenario that has played out before, for example in Translogic v Hitachi. The result in that case was that a district court’s finding of patent validity and infringement (with damages of $86 million) were trumped by the USPTO’s rejection of the claims in reexam.