EDITOR: | September 9th, 2015 | 23 Comments

Call me Citrix. 01 Communique challenging the Big Whale.

| September 09, 2015 | 23 Comments

01 Communique Laboratory Inc. (TSXV:ONE) taking on Citrix Systems Inc. (NASDAQ:CTXS) for infringement of intellectual property

Forget the proverbial icebergs with only a tenth of their mass visible above the sea level.

01 Communique Laboratory Inc (TSXV:ONE), a software development company established in 1992, makes me feel like I’m whale watching while sitting in a dingy, looking at the dorsal fins of blue whales and knowing there is much more mass underwater than what we see at the surface.

You can only really see a hundredth of a blue whale from a dingy. The rest is all undersea business that no one gets to see unless something very unique happens.

Such may be the case of 01 Communique.

With over 5000 subscribers, 01 Communique owns an impressive suite of products and services to meet the need of mobile users who have a requirement for remote access, remote support and/or to host online meetings.

01 Communique offers a suite of remote access services designed for small-medium sized business, mobile professionals and IT service providers. 01’s software as a service offerings are deployed on-demand and include functionality enabling online meetings, remote computing and IT support. 01’s suite of products includes its remote access offering I’m InTouch, its online meeting offering I’m InTouch Meeting and its remote support offering I’m OnCall. 01’s solutions are available worldwide through OEM partners, resellers, and directly to customers via download from its web site.

But what is most attractive to speculators is that 01 is taking Citrix System Inc to court for infringement of intellectual property rights. In February 2006, the Company commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against Citrix alleging infringement by their GoToMyPC product line of its US6928479 Patent (http://www.01com.com/pdf/US6928479.pdf).

I consulted the above-mentioned patent and this is where I became a whale-watching enthusiast. The patent describes:

A system, computer product and method for providing a private communication portal at a first computer connected to a network of computers includes a communication facility resident at the first computer, and a second computer including a location facility for locating the current location of the first computer on the network, where the second computer facilitates communication between the first computer and third computer for communication with a first computer and providing the location of the first computer for communication with the third computer.

In short, this is a means for computers to communicate with each other without IP address and which bypasses firewalls. Allegedly, Citrix Systems Inc (www.citrix.com) has infringed on this patent in building its $10.05B US market cap.

Citrix solutions power business mobility through secure, mobile workspaces that provide people with instant access to apps, desktops, data and communications on any device, over any network or cloud.

Here she blows!

01 Communique is seeking damages based upon a reasonable royalty, back to August 2005 the date the patent was issued, for infringement, as well as pre and post judgment interest on awarded damages; treble damages for willful infringement, a permanent injunction and attorneys’ fees.

If 01 Communique wins its lawsuit against Citrix, it will morph very quickly into a leviathan.



Dr. Luc Duchesne


Dr. Luc C. Duchesne is a Speaker and Author with a PhD in Biochemistry. With three decades of scientific and business experience, he has published ... <Read more about Dr. Luc Duchesne>

Copyright © 2019 InvestorIntel Corp. All rights reserved. More & Disclaimer »


  • Bournetrader

    Nothing like a company on a mission

    September 9, 2015 - 2:09 PM

  • RareEarthKing

    They will probably lose, not worth the gamble.

    September 10, 2015 - 12:19 AM

    • Tracy Weslosky

      I reviewed your IP address this morning RareEarthKing, and to your credit: your posts are usually quite thoughtful and add value RareEarthKing. For this reason, I will leave your comment as I appreciate we have all been quite beaten up in the rare earths market over the last several years. Also, I like our commentators to be reminded that we do not let you post anything at anytime, we like to cultivate dialogue and debate. So we do often check our commentators history.

      So RareEarthKing please note that we would not have published this story if we did not find it intriguing. Speaking of credit, 01 Communique has been fighting this battle for 10 years now. And as Dr. Duchesne points out in his review of the patent and his understanding of it, if they do win —- and we will know in January, or so this is my understanding (quoted from above): “If 01 Communique wins its lawsuit against Citrix, it will morph very quickly into a leviathan.”

      Thank you for visiting InvestorIntel — we have some of the sharpest minds in the world writing here.

      September 10, 2015 - 9:09 AM

  • Don Martin

    I have been an 01 communique shareholder for almost 20 years and yes the last 10 years Citrix and others have been infringing on 01’s patent.
    Dr. Luc Duchesne is correct that if 01 is successful with there lawsuit on Citrix come Jan. 8th 2016, 01 will see a substantial lift in share value. Is this wishful thinking. Andrew and Brian along with the legal team have a very good argument with the courts to side with 01 this time. I am hopeful for a positive outcome for 01.



    September 14, 2015 - 6:59 PM

  • John Smith

    Pre-Trial hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2015. Trial scheduled to begin starting on January 8,2016. Curious to see if the US Courts are able to side with a small foreign (CDN) company. Citrix faces an almost $1 billion judgement if they proceed arrogantly to trial and lose. Let’s see if Citrix’s new management have settlement in mind. Rarely is there ever an “investment” (more like a terrific gamble) available with such a short time frame, and the chance at a true 20x return. Chance favors the prepared mind.

    December 1, 2015 - 11:26 AM

  • John Smith

    A quick update. The Judge (Sara Lioi in Ohio) has issued her opinion on several MSJ. She has ELIMINATED Citrixs right to argue under the “Alice” decision, which would have allowed Citrix to attempt to argue invalidity during trial. This is a major defeat for Citrix and Fish Richardson, their long serving legal team. Jury selection begins January 8, 2016. Citrix continues to attempt delays with over 40 motions in limine. Judge Lioi is working through the holidays to process these motions. 01 has presented evidence which allegedly displays emails between Citrix executives admitting their knowledge of infringement. Willful infringement can pay up to 3x the award. A very interesting case.

    December 26, 2015 - 10:38 AM

    • Tracy Weslosky

      Thank you John. Both myself and several editors, including Dr. Duchesne are watching this unfold with great interest.

      December 27, 2015 - 7:02 PM

  • Lawyer

    If anyone is interested in retaining one of the lawyers who was previously involved with the ‘479 patent in the prior related litigations for consult, let me know.

    January 4, 2016 - 8:54 PM

  • John Smith

    Interesting. Please post your CV, contact info and what benefit your services would provide to this current litigation. At that point you may have some new clients.

    January 5, 2016 - 2:05 PM

    • Tracy Weslosky

      Correction – do not post your CV on InvestorIntel. Send your emails to info@InvestorIntel.com and Sue will send your introductions. Thanks for understanding but we currently block on average over 5000 pieces of spam a week. This commentary area is for dialogue and debates as we await the verdict from this much awaited patent trial.

      January 5, 2016 - 3:05 PM

  • John Smith

    Thanks Tracy. Acceptable to me.

    January 5, 2016 - 4:09 PM

  • Don Martin

    Hi Tracy

    With the start of the trail Monday morning Jan. 11th 2016 after 10 long years, has or would Dr. Luc Duchesne have any forward comments to the proceedings that the Judge has and has not allowed for the parties to present during trial?



    January 10, 2016 - 12:58 PM

  • Don Martin

    You stated that you and others would be watching this unfold this week. Can you update your readers here on how the trail is going on day 3.


    January 13, 2016 - 7:12 PM

  • John Smith

    Judgement will be in the hands of the jury as of Tuesday January 19, 2016. Insiders expect a very close decision. The US judicial system is rife with inconsistencies IMO. 01 was NOT able to let the jury know that Citrix caused 10 years of delays with repeated requests for patent re-examination. Instead what the jury heard from the Judge was “this case has taken 10 years to come to court, and the reasons why are unimportant”. This is so VERY prejudicial to 01, as Citrix was clearly attempting to delay proceedings via the USPTO in order to put 01 under financial duress. The jury was prohibited from hearing “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. At this point it looks like a coin toss.

    January 17, 2016 - 12:06 PM

  • Bob

    What is really interesting though is that 01 attorneys removed any IT or technical people from the jury. Perhaps they are not quite as solid on their rights as they would have you believe.

    January 21, 2016 - 11:48 AM

  • John Smith

    Bob, You must have been present in the courtroom to make that claim. I’m surprised that is the most interesting fact you can provide based on you attendance. A very brief scan of the published court documents tells a much clearer story of inappropriate evidence presented by Citrix’s legal team, and the written objections that ensued. The court has yet to clear the case for entry as a decision. This could take a few weeks. there are several possible valid reasons for an appeal by 01. Stay tuned.

    January 25, 2016 - 2:40 PM

  • John Smith

    Final motions and appeals due on March 7, 2016. Rule 50 motions are in play. Stay tuned for more deliberations by Judge Lioi. There is a substantial chance of a mistrial based on Citrix’s legal team’s opening comments to the jury.

    February 27, 2016 - 12:22 PM

  • John Smith

    B&H have yesterday filed their motions on behalf of 01. They are asking for either, reversal of judgement, or a new trial. I highly recommend signing up (as a guest for no charge) to the RPX website and reading the 25 page brief. It makes facts from the trial available. Not surprisingly, FISH (Citrix’s lawyers) used several techniques which border on the untruthful. After objections from B&H and in sidebars with the judge and opposing counsel, Fish admitted that “Maybe we shouldn’t have used that phrase”….and the judge confirmed that “yes, that could be very confusing to the jury”. So now the poker game begins. In the words of Neil Patrick Harris “Gentlemen start your engines….it’s going to be a bumpy *&#$% ride”.

    March 8, 2016 - 11:49 AM

  • 01 Communique Citrix Lawsuit | How To Claim Personal Injuries

    […] Call me Citrix. 01 Communique challenging the Big Whale … – Tracy I have been an 01 communique shareholder for almost 20 years and yes the last 10 years Citrix and others have been infringing on 01’s patent. […]

    March 27, 2016 - 9:04 AM

  • John Smith

    Motions, responses and reply now in the books. Waiting on Judge Lioi to render her opinion. Was she in error in allowing certain of Citrix’s legal strategies to proceed? It is in her power to overturn the verdict, order a new trial, or allow the verdict to remain in force. If the latter, 01 will proceed with appeal to the CAFC. Her decision likely several months away. In the meantime, cheap shares for those with a gamblers heart.

    May 15, 2016 - 11:16 AM

  • John Smith

    Looks like 01 will get another kick at the can. Hearing set at the CAFC appeals court on February 8 2018. It’s been 2 years since Judge Lioi in Ohio was overcome with the tactics of Citrix’s law firm, Fish Richardson. The CAFC is comprised of judges, many of whom also have detailed knowledge of tech and software engineering. A pity they can’t decide the result. If successful at the CAFC, 01 will have to go back to a “lay” courtroom, with a basically ignorant jury, and a judge who has proven herself unable to handle advanced legal tactics. 1000-1

    January 12, 2018 - 2:42 PM

  • John Smith

    Oral hearing in front of 3 judges at CAFC took place February 8. The following analysis was forwarded to me from a friend of a friend who has a contact on Stockhouse.ca (yes, I know, Ferris passed out at 31 flavors). Here you go:
    We are District Court 6 and the bar for 6 is lower than other districts so that is a positive. We just need abuse of discretion. They only argue on the orals on a couple of key points…the points that were in the briefs are still live. Couple of key points are the shifting of the burden from the defense to plaintiff is a key point in law….you can’t do that . Another key point is that if you are going go compare old to new you have to do it against the claims. That answered Judge Newman s questions as to where the thin line is. The line is you can’t just say I always did this you, have to prove it.
    Judge Newman was the judge who did the Bonneau case they used as the sample case of not allowing an error to carry over and she was also on the Zenith panel which was precedent case. Other key point on Buddy help is when the defense said Buddy Help was valid under the courts claim construction Judge Lioi should have shut validity down immediately then, as you can’t argue outside the lines of claim construction. ….or on what they said One might do to stretch the claims. Doesn’t matter…and they didn’t argue any other alternatives to validity which they would have to had to do,
    I think there were more points of law that were in there than might have shown.

    Looks like better than 50-50 for 01.

    February 16, 2018 - 1:33 PM

  • John Smith

    After careful study and consultation with several US patent attorneys, it is pretty clear that the presiding judge (Sara Lioi) made some serious errors during the course of the trial. No doubt at least partly because the defense strategy was to inundate her with briefs and motions which were meant to confuse and frankly, deny her any sleep or rest during the trial. Reasonable opinion has the case being shifted back to her Ohio courtroom for a retrial.

    April 12, 2018 - 3:30 PM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *