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". 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
SmartMetric Inc. vs. MasterCard & Visa in $13.4 Billion Patent Infringement Case
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.