"If they get non-dilutive financing, it's a huge buy signal. it's seems like a hell of a deal if they get it, but the market sure isn't pricing in the chance that they may... If they get HC amendment wrapped up, huge buy signal too.
For now, broad markets are at all time highs and most large investors are thinking about avoiding huge tax bills on their large caps. Small caps stuck until late December, but it's a good zone to accumulate future winners." https://ceo.ca/rqb?e9ba80e6550e
"[re: claim] ...the absolute worst case scenario is that they end up with some royalty mechanism on the existing OG2.0 model. If the court found them to be blatantly infringing on Roto's model, they could owe a royalty. In that scenario they wouldn't produce any more of those units, and make enough amendments to all future models that they are not subject the the royalty. This is not a hard thing to do. And then slowly replace impacted models. There are many companies that build these machines, so it's not like RotoGrow owns the world. Silly..
From what I've heard IP law is a very thin game - a moderate deviation in design is a different product completely. Pick an industry with competing products and realize how similar everything is. How does Apple not get royalties on Googles smartphones? Ford on all cars or trucks? Nike on any other Basketball shoes... the market is a flood of millions of competing products and processes that are similar but different.
I would start with "Innocent until proven guilty" and it seems likely the lawsuit is superfluous. The company has IP lawyers, and not ones they just hired, but ones they've had for years, since inception. To assume that they are all just hitting their heads now saying "Oh geeze, we never thought of this before!" Come on... I'd wager RQB is on side, and the outcome is that Rotogrow gets a cheque for $100k just so RQB avoids having to pay their lawyers the same amount in court to prove Roto's case is a joke.