On September 27, 2012, Vringo ("VRNG") filed its opposition to Google's ("GOOG") motion for summary judgment in their patent infringement case slated to go to trial on October 16, 2012. The opening paragraph of Vringo's opposition summarizes its argument, stating:
All of Defendants' arguments for non-infringement or invalidity in their Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") are premised on facts that are disputed and, in many cases, simply incorrect. Defendants' non-infringement arguments rest on a straw man that mischaracterizes a portion of I/P Engine's infringement evidence, and ignores the rest of that evidence on the same limitation. Defendants' invalidity arguments are premised on facts that are in fundamental dispute, and on which the parties' experts have joined issue, such as whether the cited references disclose "filtering" or "content-based" analysis.
Here is a breakdown of the arguments that Vringo raises in its opposition to summary judgment.
1. Vringo has substantial and sufficient evidence to prove that the accused systems infringe the asserted claims of the '420 and '664 patents;
2. Genuine issues of material fact exists because the evidence demonstrates that indirect infringement of the '420 and '664 patents exists; and
3. There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Bowman and Culliss anticipate all of the asserted claims of the '420 and '664 patents.
As much has been made of the prior art arguments, a closer look at Vringo's arguments on these two issues is warranted.
In its brief, Vringo relies on its expert Dr. Carbonell, to conclude that Bowman does not disclose either filtering the informons on the basis of applicable content profile data for relevance to the query or combining pertaining feedback data and therefore, because the parties dispute the underlying factual matter of whether Bowman discloses each and every claim element in the asserted claims, summary judgment invalidating the '420 patent is improper. In addition Vringo argues that Bowman fails to disclose searching for information relevant to a query associated with a first user in a plurality of users and as such, Bowman does not disclose each and every limitation of the asserted claims of the '664 patent.
Similarly, Vringo argues that Culliss does not anticipate the asserted claims of the '420 and '664 patents. For the '420 patent, Vringo asserts that Culliss does not disclose filtering each informon on the basis of applicable content profile data for relevance to the query, because Culliss does not filter items. Moreover, Culliss does not anticipate the asserted claims of the '664 patent because Culliss does not disclose searching for information relevant to a query associated with a first user in a plurality of users and Culliss does not disclose a content based filter because Culliss does not disclose a filter and Culliss does not consider the content of an item.
In addition to its brief, Vringo submitted 56 Exhibits total; 438 pages in unsealed pages. I am sure the sealed documents make up fairly large sum as well.
Throughout its summary judgment opposition, Vringo effectively cites the testimony of Google witnesses that supports Vringo's case and when combined with the compelling testimony of its expert Dr. Carbonell, Vringo looks to have not only put forth a compelling case to defeat summary judgment, but also has started to disclose what will be a persuasive case for the jury.
In addition to the summary judgment response, the docket has been littered with recent motions in limine, which are motions that are pre-trial motions requesting that the judge rule that certain testimony regarding evidence or information may be included or excluded from the trial. With the start of trial two and a half weeks away and with the briefing on these motions not even complete, the court will certainly have its hands full between now and October 16.
In one of the motions in limine, it was disclosed that Vringo is seeking past damages of $696 million, plus pre-judgment interest.
Since my other articles on Vringo, nothing has caused me to change my position that its case against Google is headed to trial absent a settlement. With the trial now on the immediate horizon, for those investors that like to take risks based on stocks with binary events, I believe that Vringo presents a compelling risk v. reward opportunity, particularly with the recent pullback to the $3 level the stock has experienced.
Disclosure: I am long VRNG.