SportsRiskIndex™ (SRI) International Patents (3 posts)

Topic tags: allsportsmarket, asm, coca-cola, coke, crystal world holdings, cwh, fantasy sports, S&P500, sportsfolio, sportsriskindex, sri, the new sports economy, trading simulator
  • Profile picture of Chris Rabalais Chris Rabalais said 3 years, 4 months ago:

    SportsRiskIndex™ (SRI) International Patent Discussion Thread

  • Profile picture of Chris Rabalais Chris Rabalais said 3 years, 4 months ago:

    Update (4.11.11):

    Today we are engaging Counsel in the United Kingdom to enter the following 38 E.U. Nations with our SRI patent application:

    BE Belgium
    DE Germany
    FR France
    LU Luxembourg
    NL Netherlands
    CH Switzerland
    GB United Kingdom
    SE Sweden
    IT Italy
    AT Austria
    LI Liechtenstein
    GR Greece
    ES Spain
    DK Denmark
    MC Monaco
    PT Portugal
    IE Ireland
    FI Finland
    CY Cyprus
    TR Turkey
    BG Bulgaria
    CZ Czech Republic
    EE Estonia
    SK Slovakia
    SI Slovenia
    HU Hungary
    RO Romania
    PL Poland
    IS Iceland
    LT Lithuania
    LV Latvia
    MT Malta
    HR Croatia
    NO Norway
    MK Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
    SM San Marino
    AL Albania
    RS Serbia

    We are also proceeding with a concurrent separate U.K. filing. The following is from an exchange this morning that explains the reasoning. It is my sincere belief that we face both threats and opportunities first and foremost in the United Kingdom.

    “Whilst it is not necessary to enter the UK national phase as well as the European Regional Phase of the PCT for the reasons previously stated, it would be possible to enter the UK national phase in parallel with the EP regional phase. The main advantage of doing so is that UK prosecution is generally much quicker than the procedure before the EPO, which is likely to result in the grant (if possible, subject to the inherent patentability issues outlined previously) of an enforceable patent in the UK much more quickly. The main disadvantage is the potential duplication of costs, although the UK prosecution could be used as a “dry run” for the corresponding European application, so the costs wouldn’t necessarily be “doubled”. One further point to note is that an EP(UK) patent takes precedence over a UK patent, so if the EP(UK) and UK patents had substantially identical claims, then the UKIPO would automatically revoke the (direct) UK patent once the corresponding EP patent had been granted and validated in the UK. Of course, if the claims of the (direct) UK and EP(UK) patents were different, then might be possible to have two British patents (i.e. the EP(UK) and (direct)UK patents) of overlapping scope in force simultaneously, which could be strategically advantageous to you. The final alternative would be not to validate the EP patent in the UK after grant, and to have only the (direct) UK patent in force in the United Kingdom. Ultimately, this is a strategic/commercial decision that you would need to make.”

    Regarding opportunities and threats in Europe and the United Kingdom:

    In many ways Europe and especially the United Kingdom are more advanced in their development of sports-related financial businesses. Specifically, there are firms that deal in special purpose (non-insurance) risk management and legal sports betting is commonplace. This means there are established players in these markets. While this offers us the potential for lucrative investment and licensing opportunities, it also poses a threat if we don’t properly protect our intellectual property. Our very first seriously interested prospect is in London and already in the risk management business.

  • Profile picture of Chris Rabalais Chris Rabalais said 3 years, 4 months ago:

    We had a little trouble getting this one registered but finally got past the multiple USPTO examiners objections. It published for opposition on April 5, 2011. The publication notice is below.

    SportsRiskIndex trademark:

Copyright © - 2014 Crystal World Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved.