Epstein Secrets

erms, this could affect our ability to use certain intellectual property and could also result in substantial monetary liabilities. In addition, Mr. Morley filed a subsequent lawsuit containing allegations that the formation of Square and the development of our card reader and decoding technologies cons

e was an equal partner with Jack Dorsey and Jim McKelvey in the business enterprise that ultimately evolved into Square, and that Mr. Dorsey and Mr. McKelvey breached their alleged oral joint venture agreement with Mr. Morley by excluding him from ownership in Square. Mr. Morley is seeking a judgment and

hment, and misappropriation of trade secrets, as well as other related claims. Mr. Morley contends that he was an equal partner with Jack Dorsey and Jim McKelvey in the business enterprise that ultimately evolved into Square, and that Mr. Dorsey and Mr. McKelvey breached their alleged oral joint venture agre

e recently amended claims, which have not yet progressed beyond preliminary reexamination, all of the claims from the three patents asserted in Mr. Morley's 2010 complaint have either been canceled or otherwise found unpatentable by the Patent Office Trial and Appeals Board. On January 30, 2014, Mr. M

Non-current portion of capital lease obligation S 65 F-44 Table of Content% Litigation On December 1, 2010, the Company, along with co-founder Jim McKelvey, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-02243) against REM Holdings 3,

p of three patents. The patents named Robert Morley as the sole inventor and REM as their assignee of rights, and the Company filed suit to have Mr. McKelvey added as an inventor. REM subsequently filed counterclaims alleging that the Company had infringed those same three patents. The litigation was stay

dings with Robert E. Morley and REM Holdings 3, LLC (REM). In two related proceedings, we are litigating disputes over certain patents and over Mr. Morley's early involvement in the business enterprise that became Square. On December 1, 2010, we, along with our co-founder Jim McKelvey, filed a complain

ffice (PTO) granted in 2010 and 2011, name Mr. Morley as the sole inventor and REM as their assignee of rights. The 2010 Complaint sought to add Mr. McKelvey as a named inventor of those patents given his significant contributions to the claimed inventions. REM counterclaimed, alleging infringement by Squ

n patents and over Mr. Morley's early involvement in the business enterprise that became Square. On December 1, 2010, we, along with our co-founder Jim McKelvey, filed a complaint (2010 Complaint) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (District Court), which, as amended, co

ed or otherwise found unpatentable by the PTAB. On January 30, 2014, three weeks after the PTAB hearing that resulted in the rejection of all of Mr. Morley's and REM's remaining claims of the patents in the 2010 Complaint, Mr. Morley and REM filed a complaint against us and against Jack Dorsey and Mr.

's and REM's remaining claims of the patents in the 2010 Complaint, Mr. Morley and REM filed a complaint against us and against Jack Dorsey and Mr. McKelvey, in the District Court, alleging that the formation of Square and the development of our card reader and decoding technologies constituted, among ot