Search the Community

Guys, Below is your September 2020 update on the lawsuits filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. As of today, September 6, 2020, there appears to be three (3) open or active cases Ripple Labs, Inc is involved with and litigating. The open or active cases are in bold: 1.) 2014 - Ripple v. LaCore Enterprises (closed) 2.) 2015 - Ripple v. Kefi Labs (closed) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto v. Jed McCaleb (closed)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp v. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed) 5.) 2016 - Ripple v. Pixel Labs (closed) 6.) 2017 - R3 v. Ripple (Delaware) (closed) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II v. R3 (California) (closed) 8.) 2017 - R3 v. Ripple (New York) (closed) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci v. Ripple (closed) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 12.) 2018 - Zakinov v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed; consolidated w/ #17) 13.) 2018 - David Oconer v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed; consolidated w/ #17) 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald v. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (closed) 15.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald v. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 16.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald v. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Appeals Federal Court) (closed) 17.) 2018 - Zakinov et al v. Ripple et al (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) 18.) 2019 - Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. vs. Ripple (closed) 19.) 2020 - Simmons vs. Ripple Labs, XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 20.) 2020 - Ripple Labs, Inc. et al vs. YouTube, LLC (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) 21.) 2020 - Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement, LLC, vs. Ripple Labs, XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 22.) 2020 - Simmons vs. Ripple Labs, XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 23.) 2020 - Thomas Stelmaszyk vs. Ripple Labs, Inc., et al (closed) 24.) 2020 - NPP Australia Limited vs. Ripple Labs, Inc. (open/active) Notes on active cases: #17 (above) - these 4 or 5 securities-related cases were all combined, but nothing new to report (just pretrial motions, objections, etc.). With 110+ docket entries, to be honest, I don't have the time right now to figure out what the next relevant date would be or to comb through all of the entries for some more clues. However, the community seems to be monitoring this one closely. #20 (above) - YouTube, LLC has filed a motion to dismiss Ripple's original complaint. That motion hearing is scheduled for October 22, 2020 at 9:30 AM PST. Responses are due tomorrow (September 7, 2020), and replies to those responses are due on September 28, 2020. We shall see if the court grants YouTube their motion to dismiss, or if Ripple Labs wins on this motion and the case proceeds forward to discovery. #22 (above) - Plaintiff's original lawsuit (#19) was closed and reopened a few days later; we're now tracking this one under #22. There appears to be an order granting case consolidation with the other class action securities lawsuits filed against Ripple Labs and the other defendants (#17 above). #23 (above) - On May 19, 2020, plaintiff Thomas Stelmaszyk filed a lawsuit against Ripple Labs, Inc. and others regarding securities violations. Ripple filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff amended their complaint, but the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on August 4, 2020. Would not be surprised if this plaintiff ties to join #17. #24 (above) - Ripple Labs was sued by a consortium of Australia banks over alleged intellectual property infringement concerning "PayID." https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/34658-ripple-lawsuit-tracker-may-2020 https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/34394-ripple-lawsuit-tracker-march-2020-update @Snoopy @Pablo @WillGetThere @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @xrpisking

Guys, Here is some more information on RTGS Global's patent pending application(s): 1.) It appears Andrew Smith, CTO of RTGS Global, filed the patent on September 2, 2019 in the U.K. Intellectual Property Office. 2.) It is application number GB1912608.5 3.) The U.K. patent application is titled "A method and system for the secure transmission of funds" 4.) It appears that the RTGS patent was also filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization under application number PCT/IB2019/057390 5.) However, I cannot find the patent application under the WIPO IP Portal (as of today, September 6, 2020). 6.) In the United States, there are provisional and non-provisional patents available to inventors. A provisional patent is never examined by the USPTO, but the inventor has a quick filing date (more importantly, a quick priority date), they can delay long-term patent examination costs, and the inventor could still say they are "patent pending." 7.) In the U.K, there is no such thing as a provisional patent. However, the equivalent way to do (a provisional patent) in the U.K. is to file a normal patent application but not progress that application and then, within 12 months, to file a further application which claims priority from the earlier application. 8.) My guess is that RTGS is moving forward with the full patent and is not just filing something to say that they are "patent pending." It has been over 12 months since the patent application was filed on September 2, 2019, and the status on the U.K's Intellectual Property Office website says "pending." However, it is always possible that a company claims they are patent pending, and technically they are correct, but the patent application eventually expires and the inventor loses their priority date. 8.) Want to be clear here. I am not saying RTGS is doing just that, but that I have seen this happen in the past. "Patent pending" is great for marketing; great way to entice investors or customers as well. But it is just a patent application. A patent has not been awarded to RTGS yet. 9.) In the UK, a pending patent application will be published with the search report not earlier than 18 months after the filing date of the initial UK application. So, if I am understanding this correctly, we will not be able to get a look at this patent or the text of this patent until March 2, 2021 (or later due to COVID-19 delays). 10.) If anyone wants to try to help me find the WIPO patent application, that would be great. But it also might not be available until March 2, 2021. 11.) If the RTGS Global patent application infringes upon any existing patent, including one of Ripple Labs, Inc. patent applications that may later be issued, that patent holder or inventor could take legal action for patent infringement, which would likely include an injunction to prevent that product/service in the marketplace. I'll circle back to this in March 2021. Also, all of this does not mean that RTGS is or is not a threat to what Ripple is doing. Just trying to bring some more light to what they are doing here (and what legal protections they are trying to claim with everyone and every other company quickly jumping into this space). Sources: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ctoandy/ https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum.htm https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB1912608.5 https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-pj-fullfile/pdf/6804/6804.pdf https://ocpatentlawyer.com/file-provisional-nonprovisional-patent-application/ https://www.gov.uk/search-for-patent https://rtgs.global/site/userfiles/File/downloads/RTGS-Terms-of-Use-V3_May_ 20.pdf https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf http://www.hindles.co.uk/the_uk_patent_application_procedure.html @Snoopy @Pablo @WillGetThere @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @xrpisking

Guys, According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), here is a list of all the patents owned by Ripple Labs, Inc., a few of which have been recently published this year (2020). The company has added quite a bit of intellectual property since I first started following the company back in May of 2017. Please note that all of these patents have not been awarded yet; most are marked "patent pending." Also, the United States is a first-to-file country. When comparing two similar patents, an inventor's "priority date" is considered the date the patent was filed. This changed under the Obama Administration, for the United States used to be a first-to-invent country. If anyone can help me find the RTGS Global Limited patent, that would be great (in the meantime, I will keep looking). Would love to see/read the RTGS patent and see the priority date. For example, let's say there is patent overlap or similarities between a patent pending application Ripple owns versus the patent pending application RTGS Global Limited owns, it could come down to the filing date (the priority date). Now, this is all speculation, but again, I would love to see/read the RTGS patent. Lastly, please go read the background description on the "Private asset transactions" patent pending application and the "Multiple asset transactions" patent pending application. Both of those were super excited to read. 1.) Temporary consensus subnetwork in a distributed network for payment processing (2/4/2015) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fa/43/40/567f2565faf1b1/US20160224949A1.pdf 2.) System and method for determining that results produced from executions of software have not been altered or falsified (6/8/2015; patent awarded) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8c/4f/62/11c27c38fc8307/US20180157487A1.pdf 3.) Resource path monitoring (8/3/2016; inventor was Robert Way) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fb/81/40/ebed8d6e36375a/US20180316624A1.pdf 4.) Resource path monitoring (8/3/2016; patent awarded; inventor was Robert Way) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f2/18/57/563ae940a2298f/US10419359.pdf 5.) Electronic payment network security (7/27/2017) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b1/b1/94/07d281324c1069/US20190034939A1.pdf 6.) Exchange hosting server (11/22/2017) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6c/e4/b1/680baf15f83788/US20190158418A1.pdf 7.) Byzantine agreement in open networks (2/12/2018) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/18/33/a5/a4822342d88d4a/US20190251007A1.pdf 8.) Random oracles in open networks (2/12/2018) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/12/2d/23/e3f14abc6419b2/US20190253242A1.pdf 9.) Multi-hop path finding (5/29/2018) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e5/d6/3d/78a9ede8ef88eb/WO2019231812A1.pdf 10.) Asynchronous self-proving transactions (9/27/2018) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/00/bf/60/41aa318d7fb75f/US20200104228A1.pdf 11.) Obscured routing (11/8/2018) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2d/80/5a/59471b3823bd11/US20200153785A1.pdf 12.) Private asset transactions (12/20/2018) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/61/ec/7f/7fae206ee3c33b/US20200202344A1.pdf 13.) Securing public key cryptographic algorithms (12/20/2018) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/83/0a/41/13f9ec41b564f3/US20200204338A1.pdf 14.) Multiple asset transactions (12/20/2018) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/7e/04/d2/d89db6e45e5cee/US20200202349A1.pdf

Guys, Last week, on August 11, 2020, Ripple Labs, Inc. filed for two (2) new trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). One trademark was filed to protect the word "RippleX" whereas the other mark was filed to protect the "RippleX" logo. This is the 8th trademark filed by the company in 2020 Ripple Labs, Inc. continues to add to their IP portfolio (always great to see). To date, Ripple has filed for 55 trademarks with the USPTO. 40 of the 55 trademarks are "live" and active whereas 15 are considered "dead" and abandoned by the company. The character mark "XRP" is still owned by the company. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/34633-two-new-trademarks-filed-by-ripple-labs/ https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/24086-new-trademark-filed-by-ripple-labs https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/27862-abandon-the-xrp-trademark/ @Snoopy @Pablo @WillGetThere @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @xrpisking

Guys, Below is your May 2020 update on the lawsuits filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. As of today, May 4, 2020, there are four (4) open or active cases Ripple Labs, Inc is involved with and litigating. TL;DR - A new securities related lawsuit was filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. last week. That is three, securities related lawsuits Ripple is now defending. The open or active cases are in bold: 1.) 2014 - Ripple v. LaCore Enterprises (closed) 2.) 2015 - Ripple v. Kefi Labs (closed) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto v. Jed McCaleb (closed)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp v. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed) 5.) 2016 - Ripple v. Pixel Labs (closed) 6.) 2017 - R3 v. Ripple (Delaware) (closed) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II v. R3 (California) (closed) 8.) 2017 - R3 v. Ripple (New York) (closed) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci v. Ripple (closed) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 12.) 2018 - Zakinov v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed; consolidated w/ #17) 13.) 2018 - David Oconer v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed; consolidated w/ #17) 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald v. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (closed) 15.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald v. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 16.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald v. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Appeals Federal Court) (closed) 17.) 2018 - Zakinov et al v. Ripple et al (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) 18.) 2019 - Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. vs. Ripple (closed) 19.) 2020 - Simmons vs. Ripple Labs, XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) 20.) 2020 - Ripple Labs, Inc. et al vs. YouTube, LLC (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) 21.) 2020 - Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement, LLC, vs. Ripple Labs, XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) Notes on active cases: #17, #19, #21 (above) - There are now three different securities related lawsuits filed against Ripple Labs, Inc., two in U.S. Federal Court in California (#17, #21) and one in U.S. Federal Court in New York (#19). The second federal case in California (#21) was filed on May 1, 2020. #20 (above) - Over the years, Ripple Labs, Inc. has typically been the defendant in all of these lawsuits. However, as many of you are aware, Ripple just filed a lawsuit against YouTube (Google) for alleged trademark infringement, alleged right to publicity, and alleged violations under California's Unfair Competition Laws, all related to the XRP Scam Giveaways. My guess is that Ripple Labs, Inc. will move to have all three securities related lawsuits joined (combined), but we shall see. And as soon as I have upcoming dates on all of these cases, I will update this post. @Snoopy @Pablo @WillGetThere @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @xrpisking

Guys, Last week, on April 23, 2020, Ripple Labs, Inc. filed for two (2) new trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Both trademarks are character marks (versus a design trademark for a logo). Here are the two new trademarks: 1) "On-Demand Liquidity" 2) "Ripple On-Demand Liquidity" Both of these filings should come at no surprise. Ripple Labs, Inc. continues to add to their IP portfolio (always great to see). To date, Ripple has filed for 55 trademarks with the USPTO. 40 of the 55 trademarks are "live" and active whereas 15 are considered "dead" and abandoned by the company. The character mark "XRP" is still owned by the company. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/24086-new-trademark-filed-by-ripple-labs https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/27862-abandon-the-xrp-trademark/ @Snoopy @Pablo @WillGetThere @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @xrpisking

Guys, Below is your March 2020 update on the lawsuits filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. As of today, March 20, 2020, there are two (2) open or active cases Ripple Labs, Inc is involved with and litigating. TL;DR - A new lawsuit was filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. on March 12, 2020. The open or active cases are in bold: 1.) 2014 - Ripple v. LaCore Enterprises (closed) 2.) 2015 - Ripple v. Kefi Labs (closed) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto v. Jed McCaleb (closed)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp v. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed) 5.) 2016 - Ripple v. Pixel Labs (closed) 6.) 2017 - R3 v. Ripple (Delaware) (closed) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II v. R3 (California) (closed) 8.) 2017 - R3 v. Ripple (New York) (closed) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci v. Ripple (closed) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 12.) 2018 - Zakinov v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed; consolidated w/ #17) 13.) 2018 - David Oconer v. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (closed; consolidated w/ #17) 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald v. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (closed) 15.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald v. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Federal Court) (closed) 16.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald v. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Appeals Federal Court) (closed) 17.) 2018 - Zakinov et al v. Ripple et al (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) 18.) 2019 - Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. vs. Ripple (closed) 19.) 2020 - Simmons vs. Ripple Labs, XRP II, LLC, and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) Notes on active cases: #17, #19 (above) There are now two different securities related lawsuits filed against Ripple labs, one in U.S. Federal Court in California (#17) and one in U.S. Federal Court in New York (#19). The case in New York (#19) was filed last week on March 12, 2020. #18 (above) was recently dismissed with prejudice. My guess is that Ripple Labs settled this lawsuit in order to avoid going to trial. If true, this was more likely than not a good move on Ripple Labs' part (avoid discovery and trial if you can). June 2018 Update: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/24386-ripple-lawsuit-tracker/ August 2018 Update: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/26151-ripple-lawsuit-tracker-august-2018-update/ October 2018 Update: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/27832-ripple-lawsuit-tracker-october-2018-update/ December 2018 Update: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/29587-ripple-lawsuit-tracker-december-2018-update/ November 2019 Update: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/33506-ripple-lawsuit-tracker-november-2019-update/ @WillGetThere @Pablo @Snoopy @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @xrpisking

Hey guys, TLDR: a new lawsuit or complaint for patent infringement has been filed against Ripple (the company). Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. (based out of Raleigh, NC) recently filed a lawsuit against Ripple Labs, Inc. on 9/25/2019. The patent in dispute (U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452) was filed in 2013 by Cooperative Entertainment - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9432452. As of today (10/30), Ripple (the company) has not responded to the complaint. Here is a more detailed analysis of the lawsuit or complaint: 1) Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. is a company based out of Raleigh, North Carolina (US). They are the plaintiff in this case. Ripple Labs, Inc. or Ripple (the company) is the defendant. 2) Cooperative Entertainment is registered for doing business in North Carolina (see photo below). 3) Cooperative Entertainment appears to have been founded in 2010 by Juan R. Benito - https://www.linkedin.com/in/juanbenito 4) According to the LinkedIn Profile, "Cooperative Entertainment is a boutique software development consultancy specializing in games for both consumer and corporate deployment. Clients include The World Bank, Fidelity Investments, BCBS, Capitol Broadcasting Company, Lockheed Martin, BLDG-25, StandardWorks, The E.W. Scripps Company, US Intelligence Community, and others. From console games to serious games, Cooperative's network of talented developers can advise, design, develop, and deploy games of all kinds and on all platforms." 5) This case was filed in federal court. 6) The plaintiff is alleging that the defendant's RippleNet is infringing on U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452. 7) Cooperative Entertainment "prayer for relief" includes for a fair and reasonable royalty, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law. 8) The complaint gets somewhat technical. Feel free to read the entire complaint here - https://pdfhost.io/v/a8JXXsiCr_show_temppdf.pdf. 9) And here is the docket - https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/30211232/Cooperative_Entertainment,_Inc_v_Ripple_Labs,_Inc The community will be updated as this case makes its way through the judicial process. Thanks, guys! @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking

Guys, Not sure about you, but it feels like every other day a new lawsuit is filed against Ripple. So, in the interest of keeping everything straight and knowing where Ripple (company) is with each court or legal case, avoiding the FUD, below is a list of every lawsuit Ripple Labs, Inc. has been involved with in the U.S. court system, all in chronological order since the company's inception in 2012. The open or active cases are in bold. 1.) 2014 - Ripple vs. LaCore Enterprises (closed or not active) 2.) 2015 - Ripple vs. Kefi Labs (closed or not active) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto vs. Jed McCaleb (closed or not active)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp vs. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed or not active) 5.) 2016 - Ripple vs. Pixel Labs (closed or not active) 6.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (Delaware) (closed or not active) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (open or active; on appeal) 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (open or active) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple (closed or not active) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open or active) 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open or active) * Case did not involve Ripple Labs, Inc. per se, but it was a dispute involving the technology, the creation of the Stellar, etc. Lastly, here are a few fun facts for you today. 1.) Google was founded in 1998. A little over 6 years after Google was formed, it appears the company was involved in over 40+ federal court or legal cases. This does not include any lawsuits filed against Google in any state courts.** 2.) Airbnb was founded in 2008. A little over 6 years after Airbnb formed, it appears company was involved in over 20+ federal court or legal cases. This does not include any lawsuits filed against Airbnb in any state courts.** 3.) Uber was founded in 2009. A little over 6 years after Uber was formed, it appears company was involved in over 100+ federal court or legal cases. This does not include any lawsuits filed against Uber in any state courts.** ** data is from https://www.pacer.gov/ Hang in there. Disruption breeds legal challenges. More lawsuits to come. Later. cc: @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking

Hey guys, As of today (October 7, 2018), Ripple Labs, Inc. has filed 53 trademarks in the United States, 48 of which are considered "live" whereas 5 of the 53 trademarks have been "abandoned" by the company. Ripple Labs, Inc. has quite the intellectual property portfolio, and it seems to be growing too (e.g., the company has filed three (3) trademarks in 2018). And we have seen at least two (2) lawsuits in which Ripple (the company) has sued in order to protect their intellectual property (exactly what you want to see from a well ran company). My intent with this post today is simply to raise some criticism, hopefully constructive, encouraging this community to debate one (1) of the U.S. trademarks still considered "live" and being protected by Ripple (the company) - the trademark for "XRP." My question is why not abandon this "XRP" trademark? A trademark is a symbol, word, group of words, name, and/or a design that is legally registered or established by use as representing a company or a product/service. Think of a brand name. Although trademark registration is not mandatory, one files for trademark protection in order to establish the presumption of ownership, to establish the right to use the mark on or in the connection with goods/services, and/or to file a trademark infringement lawsuit in U.S. federal court to obtain monetary remedies, including profits, damages, costs, etc. Ripple (the company) has an active or "live" trademark for "XRP" (see picture below). The "XRP" trademark was filed for protection with the US Patent and Trademark Office back in 2013 by OpenCoin, Inc. You can see the description of the goods and services and other information from the trademark in the picture attached to this post. A lot has happened in five (5) years since this "XRP" trademark was filed for protection by OpenCoin, and we all get that. However, XRP (digital asset/cryptocurrency) is independent from Ripple (the company). We have heard this time and time again from management. To my knowledge, and according to my research, no one owns the trademark for "USD" or "BTC" (although there are several trademarks from multiple companies using "USD" and "BTC" for other products/services, and the USPTO or U.S. Trademark office allows for that). Abandoned trademarks (by Ripple Labs, Inc.): 1) "Interledger" (abandoned in August, 2017) 2) "Ripple Labs" (abandoned in September, 2016)* 3) "Ripple Labs" (abandoned in September, 2016)* 4) "Ripple Communications" (abandoned in June, 2014) 5) "Rippln" (abandoned in January, 2015) *"Ripple Labs" is still bring protected by a different trademark Last point. See the list of abandoned trademarks above. These five (5) marks were all abandoned by Ripple (the company). For example, we all know that Ripple (the company) invented Interledger, the open protocol suite for sending payments across different ledgers. Ripple (the company) filed for trademark protection on "Interledger" in October 2016 and then abandoned the same trademark in August 2017. We all know that Interledger W3C Community Group is now developing Interledger, a group of hundreds of companies and individual contributors. It is decentralized (no one owns it). XRP is also decentralized. No one, including a company, should be able to trademark "XRP" and establish the presumption of ownership over the three letters "XRP" in the context of financial services. The trademark should be open and in the public domain, and the person (or company) who created the trademark five (5) years ago should no longer benefit from that original filing. Thoughts? Let's discuss. Source(s): https://www.uspto.gov/trademark (search TESS, search "Ripple Labs" and use the option to search by owner name/address); https://interledger.org/ @Snoopy @Pablo @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @jcdenton @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking @EasterBunny

Hey guys, Finally found some time to research a post from last month that caught my attention. If you have not done so already, take a look into @NMNR's post about a Ripple Labs, Inc. and Bank of America partnership (links below). Several trademarks filed in 2017 by BoA are more interesting now after reading @NMNR's posts. A trademark is a symbol, word, group of words, name, and/or a design that is legally registered or established by use as representing a company or a product/service. One files for trademark protection in order to establish the presumption of ownership, to establish the right to use the mark on or in the connection with goods/services. In June and July, 2017, Bank of America filed six (6) trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) - "xATM," "XATM," "xATMS," "XATMS," "XTM," and "XTMS," right around the time @NMNR claims BoA and Ripple entered into an alleged partnership. These filings are interesting because Ripple (the company) has similar trademarks - "xCurrent," "xRapid," and "xVia" - specifically speaking, the "x" in front of each word and/or service mark. Furthermore, these filings are even more interesting if @NMNR's other statement is true - an exclusive agreement between the two parties. Trademarks provide a competitive advantage as well. Arguably, in my opinion, these trademarks filings from 2017 bolster @NMNR's claims of a Bank of America partnership. Lastly, these trademark filings could mean nothing (ha, doubtful though). @NMNR, if possible, dig into these filings some more. We would love to hear more about "xATM" and what BoA is thinking, if possible. A automated teller machine service that dispenses XRP and/or allows a customer to withdraw XRP from their bank account? Yes, please. https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/29147-qa-payments-innovation-bank-of-america/?do=findComment&comment=634318 https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/28812-brad-garlinghouse-fis-are-already-using-xrp-in-their-payment-flows/?do=findComment&comment=629251

Hey guys, On November 14, 2018, a company called "XRP United" filed the appropriate paperwork with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to protect the word mark "xSettle" (see picture below). XRP United (company) appears to be an xrp-based exchange based out of Estonia. And the description of "xSettle" is very interesting (again, see picture below). However, one could make the argument that xSettle causes a "likelihood of confusion" to the following trademarks owned by Ripple Labs, Inc. (company): xCurrent xPring xRapid xPool xVia Below are some links about the xrp-dedicated exchange, XRP United. Legally speaking, a "likelihood of confusion" exists when one could assume that the product or service (xSettle) represents or is associated with the source of a different product or service identified (Ripple's products, like xCurrent, xRapid, or xVia). In the past, Ripple Labs, Inc (company) has gone to court to protect their intellectual property. Going to follow up with this in a few months. Take care. https://ethereumworldnews.com/xrp-united-the-first-full-exchange-dedicated-to-xrp/ https://xrpunited.com/

Guys, Update to the Ripple Lawsuit Tracker List provided below, for there is one (1) new court case to report on this morning (8/10/2018). The newest case was filed on 2 days ago on August 8, 2018. It is #15 on the list (however, it is related to #14; notes on that below). I have been asked by a few people within the community as to whether there have been any updates on all of these lawsuits filed against Ripple Labs, Inc., so here is your update. Please keep in mind that the U.S. justice system moves pretty slow. That is just the way it is, so these lawsuits are not going to be decided anytime soon (unless there is a settlement). The open or active cases are in bold: 1.) 2014 - Ripple vs. LaCore Enterprises (closed) 2.) 2015 - Ripple vs. Kefi Labs (closed) 3.) 2015 - Arthur Britto vs. Jed McCaleb (closed)** 4.) 2016 - Bitstamp vs. Ripple, Jed McCaleb, Stellar (closed) 5.) 2016 - Ripple vs. Pixel Labs (closed) 6.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (Delaware) (closed) 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (open/active) 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (open/active) 9.) 2017 - Tony Petrucci vs. Ripple (closed) 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 13.) 2018 - David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (open/active) 15.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) Notes on active cases: 7.) 2017 - Ripple and XRP II vs. R3 (California) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - November 28, 2018 ** This case is on appeal in California. The next hearing is a case management conference originally scheduled for July 25, 2018. However, it got moved to November 28, 2018. 8.) 2017 - R3 vs. Ripple (New York) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - September 4, 2018 ** This case is still ongoing in New York. This is the R3 case you need to pay attention to, not #7 (above). This case is in the discovery phase, and both parties are more likely than not combing through emails, texts, other correspondences, etc., preparing to go to trial. There is an upcoming compliance conference, and that is where the judge will be updated on whether the case is on schedule or whether there are delays. That conference was scheduled for July 10, 2018. However, it got moved to September 4, 2018. 10.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) 11.) 2018 - Ryan Coffey vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - Unknown ** This case was originally filed in California. Ripple Labs, Inc. moved the case to U.S. Federal Court (#10 and #11 are related). Essentially, both parties are in a spat about venue choice. Ryan Coffey wants this case to stay in California Court whereas Ripple Labs, Inc. wants this case in Federal Court. Again, the main issue here being "securities related" (think SEC or federal level), one party wants the state court to hear the case whereas the other wants a federal court to hear the case. Not getting into that again, please read my post/response from May 5, 2018 on this very issue (Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund; the link is below). https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/23224-ripple-sued-for-securities-violations/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-386239 12.) 2018 - Vladi Zakinov vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - September 7, 2018 ** This case is ongoing in California. We are waiting for Ripple's response or answer to the original complaint. Per their request and a motion filed, on June 26, 2018, the court granted Ripple additional time to answer and respond to the complaint; their time was extended to September 7, 2018. Not sure if this case will get moved to U.S. Federal Court or not (it does pertain to a securities related issue). 13.) 2018 - David Oconer vs. Ripple, XRP II and Bradley Garlinghouse (California) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - August 29, 2018 ** This case is ongoing in California. We are waiting for Ripple's response or answer to the original complaint. Unlike #12 (above), no extension has been motioned for or requested by Ripple Labs, so I am expecting an answer to the original complaint soon. Case conferences with the judge have been scheduled for August 29, 2018 and October 25, 2018. Not sure if this case will get moved to U.S. Federal Court either (it does pertain to a securities related issue). 14.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (California) (open/active) 15.) 2018 - Avner Greenwald vs. Ripple, XRP II, Bradley Garlinghouse, Christian Larsen, Ben Lawsky (U.S. Federal Court) (open/active) * Next date/hearing - Unknown ** This case was originally filed in California. Ripple Labs, Inc. moved it to U.S. Federal Court two days ago on August 8, 2018. Read my notes on #10, #11 above. Same issue (#14 and #15 are related). We should have an update towards the end of August or early September. @Pablo @Snoopy @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @Mrsrippley @Sebastian @xrpisking @mikkelhviid @MemberBerry @Dario_o

Hey guys, Quick update on the Ripple Labs, Inc. v. R3 court cases. Remember, this legal spat is in two jurisdictions - California and New York. The Delaware case was dismissed. 1. ) California (Case No. CGC17561205) - Ripple's legal team recently filed an appeal after losing a "procedural" battle back in November, 2017. - Appeal was filed on February 5, 2018. - This appeal is going to take a while, and this case is long from being over in California (unless settled outside of court). 2.) New York (Case No. 655781/2017) - Ripple's legal team filed counterclaims against R3 on January 5, 2018. - Ripple filed a proposed discovery plan with the court on February 2, 2018 (see documents below). - R3's legal team is rejecting the proposed discovery plan (see documents below). - Ripple and R3 cannot agree on a discovery schedule. Now, this is what I wanted to bring your attention to, the discovery plans proposed by Ripple and R3. Discovery is the next part of trial, and this is where both sides start combing through evidence (e.g., emails, internal communications, text messages), interviewing people from both sides (e.g., depositions), etc., so they can prepare for trial. This process can be long and tedious. If you look closely, Ripple is saying that they will not be finished with their discovery until April 8, 2019. Let me put this a different way. The option agreement in dispute expires on September 14, 2019. R3 would have to exercise the agreement on or before September 14, 2019 (5 PM Pacific Time). If discovery is not going to end until April 8, 2019, that gives both sides about 5 months to prepare for trial and go to trial, and trial dates all depend on how busy the New York court is and when they can get on the schedule. And this does not include the time it would take for an appeal (assuming the losing side appeals, which is likely). Now, this is a proposed discovery schedule, it's not set yet. We'll see what the court says. But this is a complex case and will take time to properly do the discovery. R3 has proposed for both sides to complete discovery by August 6, 2018. Main point: Ripple has all the time in the world, R3 does not.

Hey guys, Quick update on the Ripple Labs, Inc. v. R3 court case in New York. Remember, this legal dispute is in two jurisdictions - California and New York. The Delaware case was dismissed. The California case is on appeal and will pick back up in July 2018. This post only pertains to the case in New York (Case No. 655781/2017). No, the case between Ripple Labs and R3 is not over, contrary to previous reports, news articles and previously posted FUD on this website. 1.) Discovery has commenced. This is the next step in preparing a case for trial. 2.) Ripple's legal team wrote a letter to the judge overseeing this case yesterday (4/3/2018) and asked Justice Bransten to direct R3 to a.) produce documents from a wider timeframe, b.) to fully respond to reasonable discovery requests, c.) to include key custodians in document searches and d.) to apply search terms to ensure production of relevant documents. 3.) "R3 initiated this lawsuit and yet is now taking inordinate steps to avoid its discovery obligations." 4.) According the Ripple's legal team, R3 refuses to produce documents predating January 1, 2016 or post-dating June 13, 2017. Their argument is such documents are not relevant. 5.) According to Ripple's legal team, R3 refuses to produce the operating agreements of R3 and Distributed Ledger Group, LLC. 6.) According to Ripple's legal team, R3 is refusing to including in the document search and collection efforts four (4) highly relevant custodians (people). 7.) The four (4) custodians or R3 people: Charley Cooper, Adam Furgal, Mike Hearn and Richard Brown. 8.) Project Romeo was a code name used by the parties to refer to the development of a formal R3/Ripple long-term commercial partnership. Thus, Ripple's legal team has added that term to the list of terms to search in the emails, texts, correspondences, etc. 9.) In one of the court documents below, you will see the proposed list of people from R3 who will be ordered to turn over texts, emails, voicemails, etc., and will probably be deposed at some point by both sides and their legal team. Check out that document. 10.) Lastly, both parties are going back and forth on what terms to search, limiting the scope of the discovery. This is common. So, for example, let's say R3 and Ripple Labs both agree to include the search term "XRP." During the discovery process, Ripple and R3 would then search through the other party's texts, emails, voicemails, correspondences, etc., of the custodians or people specifically listed or agreed upon AND within the specified timeframe, looking for the term "XRP." Thus, if Brad is a listed custodian for Ripple Labs, any email during the timeframe where the word "XRP" was used would come up in the search for R3. Hopefully that makes sense. Anyways, they are fighting on what terms to search and how "wide" the scope should be here. Still digging through these documents. I will post some more information, if needed. Later tonight, I'm going to do some more digging into Distributed Ledger Group, LLC. Never heard of this LLC before. Later. @Snoopy @Pablo @zerpdigger @vlad_got_it @xrpisking @FinancialAnybody

I am Delectro. XRP's price will increase dramatically, overnight Beyond Bitcoin's dream's Decoupled Moon first Then, Standardized $10,000+ could be off by a zero or few Your proof, your source, Me, Delectro, Delectro's wisdom... HODL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey guys, Quick update on the Ripple Labs, Inc. v. R3 court case filed in New York (there is also a case on appeal in California; the Delaware case was dismissed). In New York, both parties "presently wish to jointly engage a mediator at an appropriate time to aid settlement." It seems apparent that both sides will be sitting down sometime in the near future to discuss a possible settlement. Now, this court in New York has a Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, where they try and help parties to a civil court case settle their disagreements prior to going to trial. Both Ripple Labs, Inc. and R3 have filed "Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Attorney Certifications" with the court in New York (see court documents below). "The Program is basically a mediation program, in which neutrals meet with the attorneys and parties in Commercial Division cases, review the facts and legal issues presented by the case, and attempt to facilitate discussions between or among the parties and their attorneys and explore the possibility of settlement." (https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ComDiv/NY/ADR_overview.shtml) Obviously, if the parties go to mediation but are unable to reach a settlement, their right to a trial is preserved and that will continue moving foward. As of February 27, 2018, there has been no settlement (per the court records). Want to make this very clear. This does not mean both parties are going to settle either. Want to make that very clear. Just found this very interesting, for if either party wanted to, they could have checked the box that stated "does not presently wish to jointly engage a mediator at an appropriate time to aid settlement." At least both sides are willing to sit down and try and work things out. We'll see what happens. Keep you posted.

Hey guys, Main point: Two months ago, Ripple Labs, Inc. filed paperwork to operate/do business in Massachusetts. Several large banks are in Massachusetts, including Bank of America, Citizens Bank, Santander, and TD Bank. Took me some time, but every state in the U.S. (50) was searched today (2/24) for entity filings and/or paperwork filed by Ripple Labs, Inc. and XRP II, LLC, all in hope of finding out whether Ripple plans on doing business in some other state(s) besides California, Delaware, New York. Any business operating or doing business in a state in the U.S. must file paperwork in that state, whether you filed in that state originally or whether you are filed somewhere else and are also doing business in that state (e.g., you are based in Delaware, but you operate in California and New York as well; you must file in all three states). Ripple Labs, Inc. is a Delaware based company, filed to do business in several states. As of today, it appears Ripple Labs, Inc. is active in California, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. In the past, although no longer active for whatever reason, Ripple Labs, Inc. was at one time operating/doing business in Georgia, Florida and Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Washington (state) as well (most of those filings date back to 2014). On December 12, 2017, Ripple Labs, Inc. filed paperwork to operate/do business in Massachusetts. Several large banks are in Massachusetts, including Bank of America, Citizens Bank, Santander, and TD Bank (link to list below). The Santander + Ripple announcement was made earlier this month, and BoA made their comments about cryptocurrencies 24 hours ago. Thoughts? Ripple would not just file to operate in Massachusetts and do nothing with it, not now. Was this just for the Santander mobile app (not sure why they would file an entity just to build/power a mobile app) or is this for something else to come? Later. @Droopy https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/12766-is-there-a-connection-between-ripple-and-bank-of-americas-cryptocurrency-exchange-services/ https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/subscriber-only/2017/12/01/largest-banks-in-massachusetts.html

Hey Guys, See the attachment and link below. Not sure if this is Ripple Labs, Inc. or not, but less than two months ago, someone filed for and created a private entity in England called "Ripple Labs Ltd," and the nature of this business is "central banks." It is probable that this paperwork was filed by a 3rd party on behalf of a company in order for that company to start doing business in England. Can anyone from England or that area of the world shed some light on this here, on forming a business/entity in England? Would love to learn more about that, if possible. Remember that last year, Ripple Labs, Inc. started working with the Central Bank of England in a proof-of-concept (PoC in July 2017; entity paperwork filed in 2018). Also remember the U.S. Federal Reserve Task Force for Faster Payments has been working with Ripple Labs, Inc. as well, and less than 3 months ago, Ripple Labs, Inc. filed for and created an entity in Massachusetts in order to start doing business in that state, presumably Boston (PoC from 2015-2017; entity paperwork filed in 2017). https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/19980-ripple-labs-massachusetts/ The U.S. Federal Reserve has a branch in Boston, Massachusetts. Thoughts? Sure, it's speculation, but this is very interesting. Either way, my project over the next few weeks is going to be searching for similar patterns in the public records all around the world. I believe that these types of public filings are shedding light on Ripple's activities, specifically, central bank adoption. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11151513 cc: @Snoopy @Pablo @zerpdigger @xrping

Hey guys, A few months back, this community heard about the start of a legal spat between Ripple Labs, Inc. and R3, in which Ripple's CEO Brad Garlinghouse emailed R3's CEO David Rutter and terminated their agreement and option contract. That legal dispute is still ongoing in two different jurisdictions right now. Below is the actual email Brad Garlinghouse sent to David Rutter. It was filed in court yesterday (11/21/2017).

Hey guys, Happy Thanksgiving. Hope you all have a safe and fun holiday with your friends and family. A while back, my first post highlighted the legal dispute between Ripple Labs, Inc. and R3, providing this community the documents filed in court ( https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/ ) That legal dispute is still ongoing in two different jurisdictions right now (CA and NY). A main document that was missing from my original post (and the court records) was the Technology Provider Agreement or TPA that was executed between both parties, Ripple and R3. That document was filed in court two days ago and is now available to the public. My notes on the Technology Provider Agreement or TPA: The Technology Provider Agreement is dated August 16, 2016. R3 was/is responsible for the overall management and execution of the project (page 2). There were two (2) phases of Project Xenon (page 2). "Following the completion of Phase 1 of the Project, after considering the results of the completed Phase and feedback from the participating R3 Members, the determination to proceed with the Phase 2 shall be solely at R3's option and discretion." (page 2) R3 was/is required to issue a report regarding the outcome of the project, objectively and without bias (page 2). R3's project report was/is confidential information. Have not seen this document filed in court (yet). No clue if this was completed by R3 either. Ripple shall not solicit feedback from R3 members unless R3 approved it first. If a participating R3 member contacted Ripple with feedback, Ripple had to make a reasonable effort to include R3 in the conversation (page 3). Technology license and related obligations. In my opinion, this is one of the important parts of this agreement (page 3). "Each party will own all right, title and interest in and to all of the technology it contributes to the Project including all intellectual property rights..." (page 3) My view here is this. If Ripple's provides their technology, they still own it. If R3 brought something to the table, they still own that. Pretty standard. "Each party will own all right, title and interest in and to any adaptions and modifications of its background technology." (page 3) "The parties agree to disclose promptly in writing and deliver to the other party all derivative technology that it conceives, creates or develops during the term of this agreement." (page 3) In a recent post of mine, it was highlighted that one of the discovery requests asked by Ripple of R3 was about "atomic mode." Was R'3 Corda's atomic mode feature derivative technology that came from this relationship? If so, did R3 communicate that with Ripple? R3 has not answered any of the discovery requests from Ripple Labs (as of 11/22). https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/11893-r3-stonewalling-ripple-labs-in-legal-action/?tab=comments#comment-121617 "Neither party will reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the other party's proprietary software or attempt to extract any materials and/or exploit any intellectual property embodied in the other party's proprietary software except in furtherance of the commercial partnership and purposes contemplated under this agreement." (page 4) Ripple was/is required to provide R3 with a quarterly report (page 5). Option clause (page 5). We have already seen this. If the agreement is terminated by either party, R3 and any "sublicensees" of Ripple's technology R3 issued (project participants) shall immediately stop using Ripple's technology (page 7). Any disputes arising out of the agreement shall be governed by New York law. Both parties waived their right to a trial by jury (page 11). Ripple filed their complaint in California and demanded a jury trial whereas R3 filed their complaint in Delaware and New York, and they did not request a jury trial. Regarding some of you in this community and your frustrations about Ripple announcing partnerships and who Ripple was/is working with (past, currently or future), this agreement discusses the public disclosure of the agreement and R3 participating members (page 12), shedding some light on joint press releases, getting permission first, etc. Ripple could be working with a central bank or Visa or Amazon (enter any company name here), and we will never know about it until they want us to know. Hate to assume anything, but it is a safe assumption that this clause or something similar is in every agreement Ripple signs with a potential customer. Objective of the project was/is "to explore the potential of digital assets and shared ledger technology in executing customer money movements (as opposed to only moving cash in support of other assets on a ledger...the aim is to demonstrate where the current overheads involved in Nostro accounting can potentially be reduced." ("Exhibit B") One goal of the project was/is having R3 operate Azure node running Rippled ("Exhibit B"). Several things were determined to be outside of the scope of this project ("Exhibit B"). You guys should check these out. Trading use cases which are not settled in cash (e.g., title changes). Nostro accounts held by banks funded with XRP Hedging Wholesale transaction sizes The Project Xenon plan or timetable (snapshot as of 7/13/2016) is in "Exhibit B" Phase 1 - "enable banks to settle transactions on Ripple with each other using XRP to create markets from cash balances." The goal of Phase 1 was to provide viability of the technology ("Exhibit B"). For Phase 1, the time needed to complete the phase for each bank was/is two days. Found this very interesting/cool. My thought was this. If a bank approached Ripple today and wanted to test their technology, does that first round of testing also take two days? Assume "two days" to be two business days, and there are a five business days in a week, but it somewhat puts it into perspective how much time it takes to get just one bank live. Phase 2 - "provide member banks with an additional hosted Ripple Connect instance accessible via browser (fiat payments and messaging), and keep Phase 1 running." The goal of Phase 2 was/is the same as Phase 1. "Exhibit C" appears to be the grant language and/or form for each Project Xenon participant. The amount of XRP granted to each participant was/is 150,000 XRP. "At the conclusion of Project Xenon, you may keep this XRP or you may return it to Ripple." ("Exhibit C") Page 18 and page 26 were blank in the court filings, so those two pages were left out of the documents post below. You can view the original complaints (CA and NY) and the option agreement here: https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/9857-ripple-labs v-r3-actual-court-documents/

Quick update on the Ripple Labs v. R3 lawsuit filed in California back in September 2017. 1.) Plaintiff-Ripple recently requested Defendant-R3 to answer some questions through "interrogatories." An interrogatory is a written question that is formally put to one party in a case by another party and that must be answered. This would be the start of the discovery phase. 2.) Ripple also requested documents and communications from R3. Ripple requested all documents and communications: a.) related to Project Xenon, the agreements between both parties and anything tied to the litigation. b.) related to R3 and Ripple involving David Rutter (R3's CEO). c.) related to entities joining or leaving R3's consortium. d.) related to R3's efforts to have R3's members implement or use Ripple's technology, products, XRP or similar products. e.) concerning R3's effort to account for the value of the option contract and/or to hedge or otherwise manager the risks associated with the option contract. f.) between R3 and current, former and potential investors relating to the option contract. g.) concerning R3's Series A or any other fundraising activity. h.) concerning R3's decision to abandon blockchain technology. i.) concerning the "atomic mode feature" in Corda (R3's DLT software). j.) All documents and communications concerning XRP. 3.) R3 objected and did not answer any interrogatory questions put in front of them by Ripple Labs. 4.) R3 objected and has not turned over any documents and communications requested by Ripple Labs. 5.) R3's main argument is that the court does not have jurisdiction over R3 to hear this case in California. Thus, they don't need to answer or produce anything. 6.) Ripple labeled R3 and their legal team's actions, or lack thereof, as "stonewalling." All of this is pretty standard, and this "procedural posturing" is pretty common, especially when you have two cases filed in two different jurisdictions (CA and NY). It does seem like R3 is delaying a bit aka "stonewalling." In my opinion, the two things that stuck out were Ripple's request from R3 for all documents and communications concerning the "atomic mode feature" in Corda and those communications involving XRP. What is "atomic mode"? Is Corda's atomic mode feature similar to an aspect of Ripple's technology? Was "atomic mode" released after Ripple and R3 had entered into their TPA agreement? Very interesting. Within a few weeks, more should be filed in this case and with the case in NY. Stay tuned.

http://unprecedented.libsyn.com/brynly-llyr-ripple-and-the-legal-challenges-facing-cryptocurrencies “This week on Law.com's Unprecedented podcast we talk to Brynly Llyr, general counsel at Ripple Labs, a blockchain company focused on facilitating cross-border money transfers. Llyr talks about the legal challenges facing cryptocurrencies and the emerging fintech sector, and how the landscape is not as uncharted as it may seem. "Just because you have a new technology doesn't mean that no laws apply to it," she says.” A couple of the takeaways I got from this are; Ripple is in very regular contact with Central Banks in relation to regulatory framework. When Ripple rolls out a new component of RippleNet, customers can rest assured it is regulatory compliant. I guess it makes sense why XRP is not overly marketed yet...they are still tweaking the regulations and legal framework that will apply to xRapid. Once that is finalised..... Also makes sense why Correspondent Banks aren’t set to launch until Q1/2018...enough time to formalise regulations unique to that model?

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.