Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PLNI - Game Over -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: danshalon who wrote (5525)	7/19/2006 12:05:57 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 12518

I don't think Turek's pattern of conduct is going to escape the notice of the court. The paper trail laid in the Turek bankruptcy and the other lawsuits are easily followed by the Dayton and General Technologies legal teams. The Fifth Defense is obviously well documented and was also referred to in the General Technologies lawsuit response. FIFTH DEFENSE (License) 26. Defendants are licensed to practice the '714 patent under a prior settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Aztec dated August 24, 2000. I suspect that Dayton-Aztec and General Technologies legal teams have already had 'discussions' with one or more of the inventors named in the patent, other than Turek, namely: MARSHALL E. LANGLEY JR., ROBERT C. SIMS, RICHARD M. SIMS - Message 22466063 The counterclaims are couched in unequivocal terms - COUNTERCLAIM 8. Upon information and belief, the '714 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct of the named inventors and their attorneys before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). 9. On or about February 28, 1989, James N. Turek signed a declaration in support of the '714 patent application stating that he was a co-inventor of one or more inventions claimed in the '714 patent. 10. Upon information and belief, Mr. Turek is not a co-inventor of any invention claimed in the '714 patent. 11. Upon information and belief, Mr. Turek signed the inventor declaration knowing that it was false and with the intent to deceive the PTO. 12. On or about October 30, 1989, Mr. Turek signed a declaration in support of the '714 patent application stating that the inventions claimed therein were nonobvious as evidenced by their commercial success in the marketplace. 13. Upon information and belief, statements made in Mr. Turek's declaration of commercial success that relate to present and pending sales contracts are false and are not supported by documentary evidence. 14. Upon information and belief, Mr. Turek signed the declaration of commercial success knowing that it was false and with the intent to deceive the PTO. 15. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Dayton over the parties' respective rights and liabilities in connection with the '714 patent. Dayton seek a judicial declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq. that it has not infringed the '714 patent and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.