Defending Vringo: Modernist's Mis-Characterization Prompts Response From Private Equity Blog Sponsor

Aug.28.12 | About: FORM Holdings (FH)

This article sets the record straight following a post that sought to recklessly impugn Vringo (VRNG).

In a blog post Saturday night titled "Vringo's Alpha is Set to Reverse," Modernist so grossly mis-characterized a private equity blog post that it prompted this response from its sponsor, Enhydris Private Equity, Inc., which is actually long Vringo stock:

[W]e are disappointed with the efforts of some recent authors to misconstrue our primary conclusion in this article (see the last paragraph in the prior article). Simply put, our analysis suggests that Google will lose this attempt to introduce Prior Art because it should have been disclosed Pre-Markman hearing. It is our opinion that Google's legal team is in fact attempting to sneak this Prior Art into evidence prior to the September 11th, 2012 deadline for completion of Discovery. Indeed, they used a highly similar strategy in the Oracle case, and in that case, the Prior Art in question was stricken from the record.

Our overarching goal with the aforementioned article was to bring investors' attention to the fact that the case is moving along quickly, and Google is employing the same legal strategy it nearly always does in patent infringement cases. The ruling on this Prior Art will undoubtedly be crucial to Vringo's case in either direction. If Vringo wins, Google et al. will likely seek a settlement in our opinion.

Moreover, we believe it is necessary at this time to reiterate that Enhydris Private Equity, Inc. is long VRNG. We have full confidence in the stellar legal team Vringo has compiled, and believe they will prevail in this case. We are also extremely pleased with the recent Nokia Patent news, and feel it adds considerable value for shareholders. In other words, we firmly believe VRNG is not a one-trick pony so to speak.

Modernist Highlights Google's Lawyers, Fails to Mention Quinn Emanuel Client Samsung Lost a Trial for $1 Billion the Day Before

In his post, Modernist posits that Google's lawyers from the law firm Quinn Emanuel "know how to play this game." While Quinn Emanuel is a respectable firm, Modernist probably should have mentioned that a day before his article was published, lawyers from Quinn Emanuel represented Samsung in a widely-followed patent trial where a jury ordered Samsung to pay over $1 billion in damages to Apple.

Modernist correctly quotes James Altucher, who points out that Quinn Emanuel also represented Yahoo in its patent lawsuit against Facebook, but Modernist fails to point out its resolution. For that, we turn to Foss Patents:

[S]omething that just happened in that case is nothing short of astonishing from the point of view of a patent litigation watcher and represents a major embarrassment not only for Yahoo but to an even greater extent for Quinn Emanuel...

The short version, in one paragraph, is this: Yahoo alleged that the inventor and his patent attorney deceived the patent office by saying they provided, without ever actually providing, a sworn declaration by someone who should either have been named as another inventor or have declared under oath that he wasn't an inventor, even though he was erroneously listed as one at an early stage of the application process. But the fact of the matter is that this declaration was provided, and it had been in the record all the time -- Yahoo's lawyers alleged deception when they simply failed to do their job. Facebook obtained the record and provided it to the court, and in the process found out that nobody had even accessed (!) the record before.

Disclosure: I am long VRNG. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.