Jump to content

brjXRP17

Member
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  1. Swell Part 2

    Ripple Labs, Inc. filed a U.S. trademark application back in June 2017 for the "work mark," Swell. This year's event in Toronto probably will not be their last Swell branded event, and the venue will probably change each year too.
  2. Mastercard patent its own blockchain

    Patent law in the U.S. is very difficult to understand and comprehend. Ha, attorneys with a license to practice in the U.S. (i.e. they have passed a bar exam in one of the 50 states), if they want to be a patent attorney or patent examiner at the USPTO, they have to take a second bar exam just to practice in this field (e.g., the patent bar exam). Again, very tricky stuff, @rossonero and @poppy. It is too difficult to compare the filings of MasterCard and Ripple Labs. However, it is possible that the applications would overlap a bit. Not sure though. But what I find very interesting is all the "big players" and companies now filing patents worldwide to try and get a competitive edge in this space. There is hype around Bitcoin and Blockchain right now, and everyone wants to get involved - MasterCard, R3, Comcast, BoA, Sony, American Express, Cisco, etc.. Even Xerox filed a blockchain related patent application this year. Xerox reminds me of Sears. Didn't realize they were still around. Sometimes companies think they can file patents on "open source" technology. And look at Bitcoin. There have been no patents filed by Bitcoin, for the technology is not owned by a person or entity. That is really cool when you think about it, but at the same time, companies are trying to take the technology or aspects of the technology and patent it. We'll see what happens. Lastly, Ripple's patent gives them a competitive edge, as does the rest of their intellectual property. And the earlier the patent was filed, the better. Xerox: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20170237570.PGNR.&OS=dn/20170237570&RS=DN/20170237570
  3. Mastercard patent its own blockchain

    In 2011, the U.S. finally joined most of the world and switched the U.S. Patent system from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-to-file" type of system that began in 2013. And to date, Ripple has one (1) patent filed with the USPTO, and that patent application was filed with a priority date of 10/1/2015. Not going to speculate here too much (way too many factors), but MasterCard's patent and Ripple Lab's patent, more likely than not, call for different things; call for completely different methods that they want to patent, and that is just fine. However, in the unlikely scenario that both companies were attempting to patent the same methods here, Ripple's patent was filed on 10/1/2015 whereas MasterCard's patent was filed on 5/6/2016 (MC may have filed other patents). In this, again, unlikely scenario, Ripple would have the earlier priority date and was the "first to file." Ripple's patent: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fa/43/40/567f2565faf1b1/US20160224949A1.pdf MC's patent: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20170323294.PGNR.&OS=dn/20170323294&RS=DN/20170323294
  4. @jumperabv3, the cases involving R3 are in state court (California and New York), not in federal court. But, yes, that would be the 5th (and 6th) time overall, for R3 sued Ripple (5th) and Ripple sued R3 (6th).
  5. Hey, @jumperabv3. This basically boils down intellectual property protection. Protect it or you will lose it. Two good examples: 1.) The company Keurig was founded in 1998 and they had a patent on the K-Cups or pods you would put into the machine to make coffee. The pods hold the coffee grounds. The main patent expired a few years ago, but it gave Keurig a competitive advantage since 1998 and a huge jump start on the competition. They protected their IP. 2.) The company Yeti was founded in 2006 and they failed to protect their intellectual property (at least on their first few products), and their competition came in and started undercutting them in price almost immediately. They did not protect their IP (right away; they seem to be protecting and suing people now). You see the "knockoffs" everywhere now. A person and/or company files for intellectual property protection for several reasons. One reason is to build a competitive portfolio of intellectual property or goodwill. Another reason one files for federal protection in the U.S. is so they can take someone to court for infringement. And to date, Ripple Labs, Inc. has been in federal court four times (as of 11/7/2017). Three of the four times involved them protecting their intellectual property. The other case involved Jed. This is exactly what you want to see.
  6. It was a (small) win from a procedural standpoint, @panmores. Everyone just needs to know that that tweet did not end the lawsuit in CA and NY, just the potential venue move to Delaware. @Apollo If the venue stays in California, R3 will have no choice but to respond to the original complaint and the allegations laid out by Ripple Labs. Same goes for Ripple if the venue stays in New York. Ha, I am just as interested as you in seeing an answer filed by R3, either admitting or denying the allegations in Ripple's original complaint. Should be interesting. Again, in the interest of this group, both dockets are being checked daily. You guys will have an update as soon as more documentation is filed. Great conversation so far though guys. Thanks!
  7. See my post above this one, @zerpdigger
  8. Jurisdiction is very important in any civil case, for the court must have the legal authority to not only hear the case but to ultimately pass judgment, @invest2lose. If a court does not have jurisdiction for whatever reason, it cannot hear the case. And in this situation, the Court in California must have jurisdiction over a New York based company, R3, in order for Ripple to move forward (google "long arm statutes and personal jurisdiction"). Companies incorporate in different states (e.g., California, Delaware, New York) because the laws in each of those jurisdictions are typically more favorable than other states (some states favor business, others do not). Furthermore, this procedural posturing by both companies may boil down to more favorable civil procedure rules in their own jurisdictions. Remember, both cases are filed in two (2) state courts, not federal court. Time will tell. Just think of this recent activity as posturing for a better position to move forward and succeed at trial, and both companies are doing this. This could get moved to federal court. Yes, @Hodor. I do have a legal background, just not practicing or litigating in federal court nor in California or New York. Just put a call out to a lawyer who is practicing in New York. My gut feeling simply comes from the previous activity by both parties. R3 tried to get this thing moved to Delaware. Why? Let me see if I can find anything else out and I'll report back. Keep you guys posted. That is an interesting way to look at this whole mess, @lucky. If it means anything, my honest opinion is that this thing will get settled out of court (Jed's case never made it to trial, and that was for a reason; it was strategic). However, any XRP investor needs to realize that this is a potential threat. Any lawsuit filed is a potential threat. This will mark the 5th and 6th time Ripple Labs, Inc. has gone to court since the company was founded (4 times in federal court, 1 time in California state court, 1 time in New York state court; there could be filings in other jurisdictions, but I'm not checking 50+ dockets, ha). Image below is the federal court case docket involving Ripple Labs. All of those previous cases, at least in my view, were threats that had to be dealt with, and they were handled accordingly. By the way, three of the four cases filed in federal court involving Ripple Labs were related to Ripple protecting their intellectual property (they sued someone else). This is exactly what you want to see a company doing. Their IP portfolio is looking good and they need to protect it. The other federal case was the famous (or infamous) case involving Jed. Winning here against R3 may be a settlement, but that means R3 could take something away from this whole mess too. That's OK. That may be the best strategy for Ripple Labs here. We'll find out over the next few months.
  9. The post is not for everyone, @Montoya. The latest filings by R3 total 160+ pages. Pick your poison.
  10. Hey Guys, Just to recap. A civil court case was filed by Ripple Labs against R3 in California on September 8, 2017. Ripple Labs is the plaintiff in one case (California) and the defendant in the other case (New York). This post goes into detail about the case filed in California. Foremost, this post has nothing to do with Ripple’s “procedural” win in Delaware earlier this month. Despite a tweet and some previous posts within this forum and on Reddit, yes, this case is still active (the case in New York is still active as well). Anything stating otherwise is incorrect. Yesterday, October 26, 2017, defendant-R3 filed paperwork in the The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Here are my notes on R3’s latest motion, their court documents and the civil case in California (court documents posted below; court documents separated by the Ripple logo): Ripple Labs filed the original complaint against R3 in California on September 8, 2017. R3 filed a motion on October 4, 2017 asking the court for an extension or for more time to respond to Ripple's original complaint. The court granted R3's motion for an extension to respond on October 11, 2017, allowing R3 to respond on or before October 26, 2017. R3 filed a Motion to Quash the original summons or complaint (deem it null or invalid) filed by Ripple Labs on October 26, 2017. There will be a meeting or appearance in court on this motion on or before Monday, November 27, 2017. Under oath, David Rutter (R3's CEO) filed a supporting document for this Motion to Quash, a declaration, stating several things: Ripple has alleged two (2) meetings took place in the Delaware court action (Delaware paperwork could not be found), however, according to David Rutter, the meetings were unrelated to The Technology Partnership Agreement (TPA) and the Option Contract. Both parties have conflicting facts here. "R3 did not immediately sue Ripple for claims arising out of its improper repudiation of the Option Contract because the parties were attempting to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation." David Rutter called Brad Garlinghouse "as a professional courtesy to inform him of the Delaware action." After filing the complaint in Delaware, R3 filed a second complaint in New York, and R3 is awaiting Ripple's response. Under oath, Isabelle Corbett (R3's Senior Counsel and Director of Regulatory Affairs) also filed a support document for this Motion to Quash, a declaration, stating several things: "To the best of my knowledge, no Project Xenon participant is headquartered or organized in California." "To the best of my knowledge, at least one individual who served as the point of contact for a Project Xenon participant is located in New York; no individual who served as a point of contact for a Project Xenon participant is located in California." R3 attached their original complaint filed in New York for the court or judge in California to view. This is called judicial notice. As of today, October 27, 2017, Ripple Labs has not filed an answer to R3's original complaint in New York (I am actively watching that docket as well). The main point to take away here is this. R3 has motioned the court in California and basically said, look, this Court does not have personal jurisdiction (one of several requirements needed in order to properly bring a civil case forward in court in the U.S.). R3 is stating the New York is the proper forum or venue. In a way, this is going to go back and forth until a proper venue is found. It won't be Delaware. We are left with California or New York. Obviously, R3 wants the dispute litigated in New York, for they will be favored in that state. Same goes for Ripple Labs in California. For my notes on Ripple's original complaint in California, here was my post https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/ Keep you guys posted. Later.
  11. R3 v. Ripple Lawsuit Dismissed

    Simply put, this is a procedural win for Ripple Labs, Inc. This is not the end of either case filed in CA and NY (as of today, 10/13/2017). Below are screenshots of both case dockets (CA and NY). I will check them again tomorrow or early next week, for the announcement may be ahead of the court here in updating the docket online. In regards to this dismissal, my question is whether the dismissal is "with prejudice" or "without prejudice." Need to read the actual court documents first before that determination is made. If someone finds them, please let me know. Thanks!
  12. Ripple R3 lawsuit

    Simply put, this is a procedural win for Ripple Labs, Inc. This is not the end of either case filed in CA and NY (as of today, 10/13/2017). Below are screenshots of both case dockets (CA and NY). I will check them again tomorrow or early next week, for the announcement may be ahead of the court here in updating the docket online. In regards to this dismissal, my question is whether the dismissal is "with prejudice" or "without prejudice." Need to read the actual court documents first before that determination is made. If someone finds them, please let me know. Thanks!
  13. Hey Guys, Less than two weeks ago, on Sept. 29, 2017, Ripple Labs, Inc. filed three (3) new design trade trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The three trademarks filed are “design only” trademarks. Images of the marks are attached to this post below. Does anybody recognize these marks? Reviewing the intellectual property filed of record by Ripple Labs, Inc. (e.g., trademarks, patents, etc.), this brings the total number of UPSTO filed trademarks to 46. There are 50 USPTO trademark records filed by Ripple Labs Inc. in the United States, whereas 46 are “live” or “active” trademarks and 6 trademarks are marked “dead” or “abandoned” (e.g., “Rippln” was filed years ago and later abandoned; LOL at "Rippln"). Another example. The word "Swell" was filed for protection by Ripple Labs, Inc. on June 23, 2017, prior to the famous (or infamous) 3..2..1 countdown. If Ripple filed protection over the mark "Swell," fully expect this to be an annual event or conference. See the mark description in the image posted below. Ripple Labs, Inc. has filed one (1) patent with the USPTO, and that patent is still pending. To check out that patent application, simply Google this phase - “Temporary consensus subnetwork in a distributed network for payment processing” Keep you guys posted on any other legal activity involving Ripple Labs, including trademarks filings, patent filings and the court cases filed by or against Ripple Labs, Inc. Lastly, fully expecting an update on the R3 case sometime soon. R3 asked the court in California for an extension last week (on 10/4/2017), asking for more time to file their answer to Ripple's original complaint (this is common). No real update though. You can read up about the R3 court case at the link below. Later. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/?tab=comments#comment-98170
  14. Ripple Labs v. R3 (actual court documents)

    Thanks, @T8493 , @Professor Hantzen , @Birdybird , @Alluvial , @timcoinNY , @Wobile The court documents filed in both state courts (CA and NY) were free to access, and they are public record. Unlike the US federal court system, where you have an account and must pay to access the files (check out pacer.gov), these three (3) documents were, again, free to access. Hopefully this post found its way into the correct thread. And hopefully it stays here, for this is interesting and could shed light on a lot of different things constantly discussed in this forum. Three things real quick: 1.) The TPA was not filed by either party in either jurisdiction. No surprise here. The legal rationale may be related to strategy, and this will play out as we move closer to discovery. 2.) Ripple Labs has a decision to make. If they decide to go to trial (again, so far away; settlement is likely), the TPA or Technology Partnership Agreement is more likely than not going to come out and become public record, along with other documents, testimony, etc. in what the legal community calls "discovery." Imagine having all of the terms of the TPA in front of you? Imagine having other parts of your business out in the open, parts of the business you may or may not want to share with the public? This forum and the XRP community may love that, but it may not be in Ripple Lab's best interest to let that document get out in the public. And there may be nothing in that document too (who knows). But there is a reason 95% of civil court cases in the US get settled outside of court. So, if you are Ripple Labs, do you just settle here, lick your wounds and move forward OR do you roll the dice and potentially go to discovery? Very interesting if you think about it. Lastly, R3 will have the same concerns. 3.) If this post is shut this down, I will just provide the community with updates in text form. We should be expecting some movement here with both cases in the next few days/weeks.
×