Max Sound Corp

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. Topic 842 affects any entity that enters into a lease, with some specified scope exemptions. The guidance in this Update supersedes Topic 840, Leases. The core principle of Topic 842 is that a lessee should recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from leases. A lessee should recognize in the statement of financial position a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. For public companies, the amendments in this Update are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. We adopted the new standard effective January 1, 2019. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on our financial statements.

After an excessively long delay by the Federal Appeals Court to hear the case so it could be combined with another case (Vedanti Licensing Limited vs Google) using the same Tribunal with the sole intention to harm the Company, and continue to allow Google to steal and destroy the ODT Patent while profiting from it as a key component of its business, the Appeal was finally heard and the Company lost with no reasonable explanation with the corrupt Tribunal simply rubber stamping both cases Affirmed See Fed Rule 36, which means “we won’t even look at the facts because then we would have no choice but to reverse the case.” The Company believes it will easily be able to have the judgment waived in the future as part of a successful settlement or licensing agreement with Google related to other suits against Google.

On October 4, 2017, the Court granted Mr. Attia leave to amend the complaint to add causes of action against defendants for civil violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly known as RICO).   

On October 23, 2017, the Defendants exercised their right to move the lawsuit from Santa Clara County Superior Court to the Federal District Court in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. The Trade Secret Theft and Misappropriation case was remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court on March 19, 2019, which based on the historical record, the Company believes will provide the most non-biased opportunity for Attia to finally receive justice in the matter. A Jury Trial has been set for September 8, 2020, a historical precedent as Google has nearly a thousand lawyers and small plaintiffs rarely reach this stage in any action against them. It is especially encouraging at a time when public opinion of Google has been declining and the Company is confident that the truth is only on the side of the Plaintiff. Currently, the Company has been assisting with research and information gathering services in the matter, and while it is not a party to the case, it holds the exclusive rights to negotiate a licensing and/or settlement agreement with the Defendants on the Plaintiff’s behalf. In 2011, when Google’s annual sales were reported at $39.7 Billion dollars, Larry Page and Sergy Brin its founders approved an Executive Summary that stated that Mr. Attia’s technology was worth $120 Billion dollars annually to Google.

The RICO case has been appealed and is being argued and spearheaded by John E. Floyd, the leading authority on RICO in all fifty states. Mr. Floyd’s illustrious career has made him the go-to attorney for most district and states attorneys seeking to file RICO cases. Mr. Floyd is the protégé of G. Robert Blakey, the creator of the original RICO statute and the co-author of the Company’s initial RICO suit against Google and the founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin as well as Google X CEO Astro Teller, Sebastian Thrun, and Flux Factory with its falsely claimed co-inventors Nicholas Chim, Jennifer Carlile, Michelle Kaufmann, Augusto Roman and Astro Teller.

“The trial court committed error in granting summary judgment in the Adli Firm’s favor. Based on the Adli Firm’s own evidence, there were triable issues of fact regarding the Adli Firm’s claims for unpaid fees. With respect to the Steele Litigation, nearly all of the unpaid invoices that the Adli Firm sought to recover were for legal services that were separately billed to Mr. Trammell for Mr. Trammell, Mr. Wolff, and Audio Genesis’s defense. The record also reflects that Dr. Adli orally agreed to look solely to Mr. Trammell and Mr. Wolff for payment of the Adli Firm’s fees. With respect to the patent prosecution representation, triable issues of fact existed as to whether the Adli Firm’s admitted error in identifying itself – instead of Max Sound – as the assignee of the MAXD patent was a material breach that excused Max Sound’s performance and/or entitled Max Sound to set off. With respect to the Cross-Complaint, the trial court erred in concluding that Max Sound lacked the capacity to sue when Max Sound had presented the court with a Certificate of Revivor prior to the summary judgment hearing. The trial court also erred in refusing to grant Max Sound a short continuance so that it could pay its outstanding taxes and obtain a Certificate of Revivor.

For these reasons, this Court should reverse the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Adli Firm and remand this case for further proceedings.”