Wednesday, March 4, 2009

More on WordLogic and The Second of Nine Sisters

WordLogic could vigorously pursue an Olympic-sized pool of legal targets, all of whom will be swimming in litigation. For this very reason, WordLogic has intentionally forestalled litigation against the other offenders until a second, "sister patent" is formally granted. Cumulatively, the Company has nine IP's: There's the one patent that's already been approved, and eight patents that are still pending. Patent pending number two is a close sister patent to the one already granted. Evanshen said it's also for a classical deep-search, content-seeking, predictive, algorithm-based software technology for advanced word recognition - except this one's supercharged. That makes it a powerful playing piece, one that both strengthens and broadens the overall coverage of Company's intellectual property - and therefore its suit against Mercedes-Benz. Technically, in its current state of legal flux, the sister patent is still pending - but it's pending fast! Let me explain: In reviewing the online application - which is the right of the patent applicant - Evanshen told me last week that activity in the file's movement within the U.S. Patent Office suggested that "approval was imminent". He was correct. As part of Tuesday's news release, the Company was able to announce, "The United States Patent and Trademark Office has put WordLogic's second patent pending in a position of allowance. The Company's patent attorneys have filed the necessary response required to have this second patent pending allowed. The Company considers this development significantly important, firstly as an additional asset increasing the value of the Company and secondly with regard to the importance it will have in settling this case. "I, as co-owner of Stewart/Abbott Medical and a U.S. patent that's now pending, all I can say is this: "Man, I sure hope we get a letter like that!" To be in a "position of allowance" means you're all but home, the deal is all but done and you're just waiting for the ink to dry. For WordLogic Corporation, it means: 1) The boundaries of the existing suit are about to extend favorably; and, 2) The case against Mercedes will be much easier to win. This does NOT mean WordLogic needs the sister patent to be victorious or that it needs a second trigger to fire the first gun. No, patent number two is simply extra ammunition to win the case. And I believe it will. And, when it does, defendants in all future cases will fall like dominos, the damage verdicts will become almost predictable and the courtrooms will pay off like casinos. There is a lot in the wind right now, and much of it could send this stock soaring to previously unseen heights. Regardless of the "End Game" and how it's played out, Evanshen is looking at a surprising number of opportunities. It's a fairly complex decision tree, but each of the potential decisions is incredibly lucrative - and virtually all of them could play nicely into the hands of stockholders. The momentum at this point is considerable. Within a month or three, I could easily see the stock returning to its 52-week high of $1.90. Longer term, an out-of-court settlement with Mercedes-Benz or a deep-pocket buyout offer from one of the Googles or Microsofts of the world would certainly put the stock back at its 60-week high of $4.30 - and even that could easily turn out to be the valuation understatement of 2009.

2 comments:

HoweStreetBlues said...

I wonder whether the fine tooth comb of patent language will support Wordlogic in its cash quest to enforce its patent. Each big-pocketed company will have lawyers scrutining the language of the patent--in your opinion, is Wordlogic's patent language general enough to encompass the word completion features of a Google or Microsoft?

Kelly W. said...

The catch is that the lawyers are intrinsically sticklers for a contract language tooth and comb work. They are not enough linguists or A PRIORI patent writers. It is up to a legal team's patent experts to push the case over the edge, and prove the citing of completion features to be either general or specific.