Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.

Free
Message: If you did NOT have time to scroll down far enough..

1. MCM Portfolio LLC (“MCM”) is the owner of the CORE Flash Portfolio. TPL and
MCM are parties to a commercialization agreement whereunder TPL not only
commercializes and licenses CORE Flash patents but is required to protect their value
and prosecute the patents it is commercializing. Alliacense is TPL’s licensing agent
and has been providing said services since TPL entered into the commercialization
agreement with MCM in 2006.
2. On March 27, 2013, HP petitioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) to institute a new form of post-grant review created by the 2011 America
Invents Act known as an “Inter Partes Review” (“IPR”) against CORE Flash patent
US 7,162,549 and assigned Case No. IPR2013-00217. The Petition was granted. A
Writ of Mandamus in the District Court challenging the USPTO’s legal basis for
granting HP’s petition was filed in defense of the patent.
3. The above-captioned Chapter11 bankruptcy case was filed on March 20, 2013.
4. Following a bench trial in the IPR proceeding on 6/4/14, the Patent and Trademark
Appeals Board (PTAB) issued its final decision (8/6/14) finding certain claims of
U.S. ‘549 invalid. MCM considers the finding reversible error for various reasons,
including: finding U.S.’549 invalid based on insufficient evidence to support the
verdict, and denying the argument that HP’s IPR was barred due to its filing more
than a year after Pandigital was sued for patent infringement when the statute is clear
on its face as to the year deadline.
5. MCM has demanded that TPL either proceed with the ‘549 appeal or reconvey to
MCM all rights to the ‘549 to MCM. MCM asserts that TPL is presently in default of
the commercialization agreement for failing to prosecute the ‘549 appeal.
6. TPL presented the Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (the “OCC”) with
information regarding the pros and cons of proceeding with the ‘549 appeal. The
Committee agreed to a schedule under which TPL would pay Alliacense $50,000 for
work immediately required on the ‘549 appeal in exchange for a delay until
MOTION TO AUTHORIZE COMPROMISE AND RETURN OF PATENT
Page Case: 13-51589 2 D o c # 6 1 4 F i l e d : 1 1 / 2 6 / 1 4 E n t e r e d : 1 1 / 2 6 / 1 4 1 4 : 2 1 : 2 7
3
1

PS; Those in Southern CALIFORNIA are getting SOME RAIN., FINALLY

Have a happy day..

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply