MCVE..MACROSOLVE http://www.macrosolve.com/
TULSA, OK–(Marketwired – Sep 19, 2013) – MacroSolve, Inc. (OTCQB: MCVE) (“MacroSolve” or the “Company”), a leading provider of mobile technology intellectual property and app venture mentorship, announces it has filed additional patent infringement suits against:

Comcast Corporation
Home Box Office, Inc.
Discover Financial Services, Inc.
Carlson Hotels, Inc.
Dropbox, Inc.
Wyndham Hotel Group
MediaFire
Meetup, Inc.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Box, Inc.
Five Guys Enterprises
MacroSolve’s U.S. Patent No. 7,822,816, which was issued October 26, 2010, addresses mobile information collection systems across all wireless networks, smartphones, tablets, and rugged mobile devices, regardless of carrier and manufacturer. MacroSolve’s patent covers fundamental technology in the mobile application space utilized by numerous companies. The patent, a significant intellectual property asset to MacroSolve, further advances its position as a leader in the mobile solutions market.

“The strength of the patent is evident in the growing number of licensees, which now stands at sixty-four,” says Jim McGill, MacroSolve Chairman and CEO.

About MacroSolve Founded in 1997, MacroSolve is heralded for its robust IP portfolio, while advancing throughout the mobile apps era by innovating key technologies that have laid the foundation for apps and next-gen developers. Today, MacroSolve is empowering a new era of mobile innovators seeking advisory and patent services and IP strength from a source of experience. For more information, visit www.macrosolve.com.

9/03/2009 UPDATE

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:07CV80(LED)
JURY TRIAL
PLAINTIFF VIRNETX INC.’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
TO AMEND APPENDIX B TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION
VirnetX, Inc. (“VirnetX) hereby opposes Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) Motion
for Clarification to Amend Appendix B to Claim Construction Opinion (“Motion”) and would
show as follows.
The Court, in its Claim Construction Order and Opinion, construed “virtual private
network” (“VPN”) as “a network of computers which privately communicate with each other by
encrypting traffic on insecure communication paths between computers.” See Claim
Construction Opinion [Dkt. No. 246] at 10.1 Microsoft asks the Court to add the following
sentence to the end of this construction: “‘Privately’ means ensuring both data security and
anonymity.” See Motion at 2. Because Microsoft’s proposed revision takes a portion of the
1 As a initial matter, VirnetX opposes Microsoft’s Motion so as not to waive its objection to the
Court’s construction of the term “virtual private network” to the extent that the Court did not
adopt VirnetX’s proposed construction.
Court’s Opinion out-of-context and introduces ambiguity into the construction of virtual private
network, the Court should not adopt Microsoft’s proposal.
Although the Court’s Opinion states that a VPN “require[es] both data security and
anonymity,” Microsoft’s proposed revision to this construction fails to capture the reasoning
underlying the Court’s Claim Construction Opinion and takes a single sentence from the Court’s
thirty-two page opinion out-of-context. Microsoft ignores the context of this statement that (i)
compared the parties’ respective positions regarding anonymity; (ii) detailed the degree of
anonymity of various VPN systems; and (iii) evaluated multiple definitions of “VPN.” See id. at
4-10. Further, this sentence was not written for a lay audience. While the sentence is clearly
understood in the Court’s Opinion, it would introduce ambiguity if taken out of this context and
submitted to the jury.
For this reason, Microsoft’s reliance on Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co.,
563 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009) is misplaced. Although the Federal Circuit has “emphasized the
necessity of assigning ‘fixed meaning’ to terms within constructions as part of the process of
assigning unambiguous meaning to the claims,” see Motion at 2, there is nothing fixed or
unambiguous about Microsoft’s proposed construction. Microsoft’s proposed construction
introduces ambiguity to the construction of VPN—through the terms “ensuring” and
“anonymity”—and offers no additional guidance to the jury.
Moreover, if the Court adopts Microsoft’s clarification, VirnetX fears that Microsoft will
attempt to exploit this ambiguity by re-arguing to the jury what the Court has already decided
during claim construction. Specifically, Microsoft may attempt to equate the “anonymity”
requirement of the Court’s construction to IP tunneling or the IP address hopping feature of the
preferred embodiments of the patents-in-suit, but both of these arguments have already been
rejected by the Court.
For all of these reasons, VirnetX respectfully requests that the Court deny Microsoft’s
Motion for Clarification and to Amend Appendix B to the Claim Construction Opinion..
DATED: September 3, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
/s/ Sam Baxter
Sam F. Baxter
Texas State Bar No. 01938000
E-mail: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
104 East Houston, Suite 300
Marshall, Texas 75670
Telephone: (903) 923-9000
Telecopier: (903) 923-9099
Douglas A. Cawley
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
E-mail: dcawley@mckoolsmith.com
Theodore Stevenson, III
Texas State Bar No. 19196650
E-mail: tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
Luke F. McLeroy
Texas State Bar No. 24041455
E-mail: lmcleroy@mckoolsmith.com
Jason D. Cassady
Texas State Bar No. 24045625
E-mail: jcassady@mckoolsmith.com
J. Austin Curry
Texas State Bar No. 24059636
E-mail: acurry@mckoolsmith.com
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
Otis W. Carroll
Texas State Bar No. 03895700
Deborah Race
Texas State Bar No. 16448700
IRELAND, CARROLL &KELLEY
6101 South Broadway, Suite 500
Tyler, Texas 75703
Telephone: (903) 561-1600
Facsimile: (903) 581-1071
E-mail: Fedserv@icklaw.com
Robert M. Parker
Texas State Bar No. 15498000
PARKER, BUNT &AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 East Ferguson

MORE FROM YAHOO BOARD

I think there is somewhat more at play and nobody seems to be talkng about it.

Both Windows7 AND Chrome OS, will be released shortly and both will trample VirnetX patents. Neither can afford to underestimate the $DAMAGE$$ of being denied VHC PARADIGM CHANGING technology.

A loss of Windows as we know it, is UNthinkable to Microsoft.

Google undoubtedly went for $Billions$$, in deciding to take on Windows.

I cant see how either Microsoft or Google, can proceed if they are denied use of our Patents, by the other.

For that matter, Industry infringers, need ask themselves the same questions.

The Company is undoubtedly preparing for Trial in March but unless The Law Of Gravity has been repealed, I cant see it getting that far.

NO NEW COURT NEWS LAST ONE 8/19/2009

Virnetx v Microsoft patent infringement Document 247 8/19/09



APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
CORP., § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:07-CV-80 (LED)
Plaintiffs,
JURY TRIAL
V.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND TO AMEND APPENDIX B TO CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION OPINION
Microsoft respectfully moves to clarify and amend the Court's definition of
"virtual private network" in Appendix B to the claim construction order [Docket #246] to include
language from the Court's opinion that "privately" in the VPN construction requires ensuring
"both data security and anonymity."
At claim construction, one of the primary disputes between the parties on the term
"virtual private network" ("VPN") was over whether a VPN requires both anonymity and data
security as in a private network, or simply data security. The Court ruled that a VPN requires
both. See Claim Construction Opinion at 9 ("Accordingly, the Court construes "virtual private
network" as requiring both data security and anonymity."). While the Court resolved the
dispute clearly, the Court implemented this portion of its construction in Appendix B through the
word "privately":
virtual private network: a network of computers which privately
communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure
communication paths between the computers.
Id. at 35 (Appendix B). The word "privately" in this construction is the focal point for what it
means for a virtual private network to provide security on insecure communication paths, and
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 1 of 5
will be the crux of any argument over whether a particular network meets the Court's
requirements for a VPN. However, "privately" is a word that a lay juror may not understand has
the precise meaning given the term by the Court in resolving this dispute between the parties.
Additionally, that term was originally proposed by VimetX as part of its claim construction
position for "VPN," and VimetX has argued that its construction does not require anonymity,
contrary to the Court's construction.
To assist the jury and prevent any confusion at trial, Microsoft proposes adding to
Appendix B the definition of "privately" that the Court set forth in its opinion for the word
"private" in the VPN context. The Court specified that "private' in 'virtual private networks'
means both data security and anonymity." Id. at 8. The Appendix B definition would thus read
(with the new language underlined):
virtual private network: a network of computers which privately
communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure
communication paths between the computers. "Privately" means
ensuring both data security and anonymity.
The Federal Circuit has recently emphasized the necessity of assigning "fixed
meaning" to terms within constructions as part of the process of assigning unambiguous meaning
to the claims. See Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 563 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2009). In Every Penny Counts, the Federal Circuit affiiiiied the district court's claim
construction of the term "excess cash," which required the district court to define a phrase, -sale
price," that had been proposed as part of the "excess cash" construction by the plaintiff. Id.
The Court dismissed the plaintiffs attempt to criticize the district court's clarification of "sale
price," noting that "f the court had adopted [plaintiffs] proposed construction without first
assigning a fixed meaning to this construction, then it would quite clearly have failed to assign a
fixed, unambiguous, legally operative meaning to the claim." Id. (quotation omitted).
2
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 2 of 5
Here, the definition of "virtual private network" in Appendix B should be
clarified and amended to include the fixed meaning of "privately" given to that term by the Court
in the text of its opinion.'
Dated: August 19, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jared Bobrow
Jared Bobrow (Pro Hac Vice)
Lead Attorney
Matthew D. Powers
Paul Ehrlich (Pro Hac Vice)
Thomas B. King (Pro Hac Vice)
L. Okey Onyejekwe Jr. (Pro Hac Vice)
WEIL„GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
650-802-3000 (Telephone)
650-802-3100 (Facsimile)
jared.bobrow@weil.com
paul.ehrlich@weil.com
thomas.king@weil.corn
okey.onyejekwe@weil.corn
Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser (Pro Hac Vice)
Timothy E. DeMasi (Pro Hac Vice)
GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153-0119
2 12-3 10-873 5 (Telephone)
212-310-8007 (Facsimile)
tim.demasi@weil.com
elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
Daniel Booth (SBN: 24055196)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
713-546-5000 (Telephone)
Microsoft does not waive its prior positions on the construction of "virtual private network"
and other claim terms.
3
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 3 of 5
713-224-9511 (Facsimile)
daniel.booth@weil.com
Eric H. Findlay (SBN: 00789886)
FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP
6760 Old Jacksonville Highway, Suite 101
Tyler, TX 75703
903-534-1100 (Telephone)
903-534-1137 (Facsimile)
efindlay@findlaycraft.corn
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
4
Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 247 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system
per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on August 19, 2009.
/s/ Paul T Ehrlich
Paul T. Ehrlich
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), counsel for the
parties met and conferred telephonically regarding this motion on August 12, 2009. Microsoft
was represented by Paul Ehrlich. VirnetX was represented by Jason Cassady. Follow-up was
conducted via e-mail, and no agreement could be reached. VirnetX opposes this motion. An
agreement could not be reached because VirnetX took the position that no clarification is
necessary and that the proposed clarification does not accurately reflect the Court's order,
whereas Microsoft believes that the Court's clear statements concerning the scope of its
construction should be included in Appendix B to assist the jury by giving the jury an accurate
and precise view of the construction. Microsoft is accordingly seeking clarification and
amendment of Appendix B.
/s/ Paul T. Ehrlich
Paul T. Ehrlich
5

FROM YAHOO ON I4I PATENT INFRINGMENT WITH MS

i4i Case Influence on VHC 26-Aug-09 07:22 pm I cannot find the previous message relating to the discussion about i4i's influence and/or similarity to VHC's litigation so I started a new thread.

Microsoft has fired back a response to the Eastern District and Judge Davis (see URL below) regarding his ruling in favor of i4i. Either MS truly believes that they have "justice" on their side and have been treated inequitably or they are attempting to once again leverage their size/market position to shoot down his i4i decision and awards. As someone stated here before maybe the most appropriate way to cure their legal and patent infringement problems would be to pay the plaintiff and settle the case.

I do not have a legal background but I have got to think that with Judge Davis' reputation and track record an appellate court would have to find significant errors in his legal judgment in order to reverse it. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe MS is not use to a court of law that truly believes that individuals and companies are entitled to their intellectual property "rights."

Also, from a practical point of view I don't know whether the language and strategy that MS' attorneys have employed here is the best way to ingratiate yourself to a judge that will be hearing another trial against you in less than seven months. In any case, the scenario that is unfolding here with i4i, McKool Smith APC and Judge Davis cannot but help lay some groundwork for VHC's jury trial on March 8, 2010. A major difference (IMHO) though is that VHC's litigation will have much broader legal roots, IP claims and financial consequences.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9...

STILL COUGHT NO FLIES vhc HAS 20M SHARES FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO BUY I GUESS I WILL HAVE TO PUT SOME HONEY ON IT if they win 6 bill from the law suit 40 mil o/s shares if the co. keeps say 3 bil that would equal $75.00 a share plus maybe dividens on the royalty fees. IS THAT SWEET ENOUGHT FOR YOU

The best play that I know of today is VHC with microsoft infringeing on their patents.
v
SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VirnetX Holding Corporation (NYSE Amex: VHC) announced today that its president and CEO, Kendall Larsen, will be conducting a conference call on Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 1:00PM EDT, to discuss its current Markman Order in its litigation with Microsoft and the Order's impact on VirnetX's business strategy.

To listen to the call live on your computer, click on the webcast link: http://www.b2i.us/external.asp?b=1944&id=777&from=wc&L=e

The Company currently has 20 U.S. and International (Europe, Japan and Australia) patents

(with 27 more pending) in their portfolio and each patent has a range of 40-60 claims tied to it. ONE OF THE PATENTS IN THE PORTFOLIO COVERS THE COMPANY ABILITY TO BUILD A VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK (VPN) across the internet in real time that automatically and completely secures a

communication, ensuring its privacy, and allowing access to that communication only to specifically designated outsiders.

VirnetX intends to establish the exclusive secure domain name registry in the United States and other key markets around the world. The

Company intends to license their patents and their GABRIEL Connection Technology to original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, within

the IP-telephony, mobility, fixed-mobile convergence and unified communications markets. They also intend to license their patent portfolio,

technology, and software, including their secure domain name registry service, to communication service providers as well as to system

integrators