SmartMetric Inc. vs. MasterCard & Visa in $13.4 Billion Patent Infringement Case

SmartMetric Inc. vs. MasterCard & Visa in $13.4 Billion Patent Infringement Case 
The Date for the Hearing on Various Motions Put Forward by the
Plaintiff, SmartMetric Inc. and the Defendants, MasterCard and Visa
Has Been Set for September 25th 2013 
NEW YORK, NY -- (Marketwired) -- 08/19/13 --  SmartMetric, Inc.
(OTCQB: SMME) - Speaking today from NEW YORK, SmartMetric(TM) Inc.
President & CEO Chaya Hendrick said the hearing on all motions before
the Court has been changed from August 27th 2013 to September 25th,
2013. The hearing is scheduled to be heard before the Honorable Judge
Michael W. Fitzgerald in the Federal District Court, California, at
10:am on September the 25th, 2013. Case number: 2:11-cv07126-MWF-AJW.
Docket Number 169. 
SmartMetric Inc. is asking the Court for summary judgment on both the
question of patent infringement and SmartMetric Inc's damages claim
of $13.4 Billion against both MasterCard and Visa. Visa and
MasterCard have filed various motions including asking for summary
dismissal of the case. 
SmartMetric Inc. filed suit against both Visa and MasterCard for
patent infringement a few years ago and the case has been an ongoing
case before the Federal District Court in California, she said. The
company President, Ms. Hendrick, further said that the company has
had two Markman hearings on its "464" patent as well as a successful
appeal it won in the United States Federal Appeals Court in
Washington DC. She further said that both Visa and MasterCard have
previously moved for dismissal of the case and failed.  
The President and CEO of SmartMetric Inc. further stated that
SmartMetric has completed discovery and has submitted to the Court
two expert reports. One report covering the issue of infringement and
the other an expert report in support of its claim for $13.4 Billion
in damages against both of the defendants. 
Depositions of both MasterCard's and Visa's experts along with
SmartMetric's experts have been taken. 
Note on what is a Markman Hearing and the role of Summary Judgment's
in the process of Patent Litigation: 
A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court
during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the
appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim,
when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known
as a "Claim Construction Hearing".[1] 
Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been
common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a
patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact
for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in
many situations, but judges determine matters of law. 
Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent
infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing
may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction
finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement
case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally
take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close
of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at
the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A
Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before
jury selection.  
The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two
categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of
the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent.
Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, or other unwritten
sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence.
source: wikipedia. 
Like claim construction, summary judgments are decided as a matter of
law. The text of Rule 56(c) restricts the grant of summary judgment
to situations where there are "no genuine issues of material fact"
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a "matter of law."
The familiarity of this procedural mantra of Rule 56 should not
prevent its simplicity. A movant only obtains summary judgment where
it is entitled to prevail on the existing law and there are no major
factual issues. source: A DONALD S. CHISUM, CHISUM ON PATENTS 
For information on SmartMetric and its technology please go to
www.smartmetric.com. For information on the SmartMetric(TM)
MedicalKeyring(TM) please go to www.medicalkeyring.com 
About SmartMetric, Inc. SmartMetric Inc. is a technology that
designs, engineers its advanced products utilizing the company's
expertise in miniaturizing electronics. The company has developed
miniature fingerprint self powered fingerprint scanners and readers
that are at the center of SmartMetric Inc.'s key ring and credit and
identity card products. For more information please visit us at
www.smartmetric.com. 
Safe Harbor Statement certain of the above statements contained in
this press release are forward-looking statements that involve a
number of risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements
are within the meaning of that term in Section 27A of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Readers are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are
not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and
uncertainties, and that actual results may differ materially from
those indicated in the forward-looking statements as a result of
various factors. SmartMetric(TM) and MedicalKeyring(TM) are
trademarks of SmartMetric, Inc. (OTCQB: SMME) 
Contact:
Investor Relations:
Jens Dalsgard 
ConstellationAA.com
775.771.5808 office 
SmartMetric, Inc.
Ms. Chaya C. Hendrick
President & CEO
Office: 786.294.6000
Direct: 786.269.2238
Email: ceo@smartmetric.com 
 
 
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.