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 : Decision Diagnostics Corp (OTC: DECN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thomas a. burke who wrote (155)	12/24/2015 12:10:44 PM
From: Pogeu Mahone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 267

from yahoo board Grass1973, all in my humble opinion. "Does anyone have a handle on what is likely to happen when the court makes their decision public re the hearings on Dec 8? If they rule in favor of DECN, does JNJ get another chance to delay again by requesting an appeal?" If DECN wins and the Federal Circuit Court "AFFIRMED" the ruling in the USPTO IPR process, J&J can delay about 9 more weeks, 21 days allowed to file for an en banc hearing before all 16 judges in that high court and then about 6 weeks for the en banc panel to rule, if they agree to hear yet another appeal. There are only about three cases every two months where an en banc hearing is granted between two and three percent. A denial of an en banc hearing could occur in as little as two weeks. "If they overturn previous rulings and vote in favor of JNJ, is it game over for DECN?" If the judges on the DECN panel think that J&J made their case on appeal, or that J&J diodn't make their case but the USPTO panel erred greatly, then the Federal Circuit Court will "REMAND" the case. There have been over 2100 rulings on appeal of IPR final determinations, and out of the 2100 one has been REMANDED in total, and one has been AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part. The new ruling when it occurs will not change the previous good ruling in the same court in late 2013. So, DECN will still be way ahead on points. "What happens with a ruling on the 105 patent, and when will that be decided?" There will be some sort of ruling between now and January 31 which means that a final mandate could be issued in about twelve weeks, nine weeks if en banc is requested by J&J, then 3 weeks for the Mandate. "Bottom line in my mind is how much longer can this go on before DECN can get back to business and as an aside, is there really a plan to get back to business?" I don't really get into the business issues in my posts, but do you really think J&J would be fighting like crazy if they thought there was no go-forward plan Less

To: thomas a. burke who wrote (155)	1/21/2016 9:17:03 PM
From: Pogeu Mahone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 267

Fed. Circ. Affirms PTAB Ruling Axing Glucose-Testing Patent By Kelly Knaub Law360, New York (January 20, 2016, 4:56 PM ET) -- The Federal Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an America Invents Act inter partes review that Johnson & Johnson subsidiary LifeScan Scotland Ltd.'s patent on testing the level of glucose in the blood is invalid as obvious. In a per curiam decision, the three-judge panel upheld the PTAB’s findings without offering an accompanying opinion. LifeScan had argued that the PTAB’s final written decision, issued in August 2014, was “replete with legal errors” and contended its conclusion that the claims of U.S. Patent Number 7,250,105 are obvious lacks substantial evidentiary support. It also argued that the IPR proceeding was procedurally flawed, saying that only the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or her proper delegate, is able to institute IPRs. Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee, who intervened in the case, told the appeals court that LifeScan’s contention that she lacks the discretion to delegate the institution decision to the board had no merit, saying she properly delegated her authority to the PTAB. The three-judge panel ultimately ruled in favor of Pharmatech Solutions Inc., which argued that substantial evidence did, in fact, support the board’s basis for finding that the disputed claims of the ‘105 patent would have been obvious over the combination of two prior art references. It also said LifeScan waived any challenge to the USPTO director herself not instituting the IPR and that even if it did not, the claim was meritless...