Seeking Alpha

Adam Gill

 
View Adam Gill's Comments BY TICKER:
  • Is Vringo Or Google Cheering The Federal Circuit's Fresenius Decision? [View article]
    All of the above is now moot.
    Jul 24 02:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Vringo Or Google Cheering The Federal Circuit's Fresenius Decision? [View article]
    I am not sure what you mean by "precedent setting case," but it absolutely IS a "precedential opinion:"

    http://1.usa.gov/14JtuEd

    If you mean that it did not substantively add to the law in this area, you are entitled to your opinion, although other readers should know that it is contrary to the considerable discussion of the decision so far by actual patent lawyers.
    Jul 10 04:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Vringo Or Google Cheering The Federal Circuit's Fresenius Decision? [View article]
    Fly-

    You are wrong. The decision absolutely shifted the application of the rule.

    If this latest Baxter decision stands, and the USPTO rejects the claims of the VRNG patents, then all appeals of all issues in the GOOG must be completed before the appeal of the reexamination is completed. That was not true before the latest Baxter decision. Before, only a "final judgment" on the validity was arguably needed to be res judicata on the PTO/validity issue. Appeals on other issues (like royalties) could have been pending and the verdict would have been safe.

    However, a lot still has to happen for the reexaminations to kill the GOOG verdict. BPAI appeal followed by Fed. Circuit appeal (if necessary) on '420, plus entire reexamination process followed by BPAI followed by Fed. Cir. appeal (if needed) for the '664. All asserted claims must be lost. And it all has to happen before the GOOG case is final - which is the goalpost just moved out by the Fed. Cir.

    I'm still long VRNG.

    Jul 9 04:00 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Vringo Or Google Cheering The Federal Circuit's Fresenius Decision? [View article]
    It means that there is a decent likelihood that the Federal Circuit may re-hear this issue en banc, in which case there may be a different outcome.


    Jul 4 01:11 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Vringo Or Google Cheering The Federal Circuit's Fresenius Decision? [View article]
    If you look at the concurrences and Judge Newmann's dissent in the October 2012 denial of Fresenius' en banc request re PTO invalidiy determination, you will see that several members of the Federal Circuit believe that a final judgment in a court proceeding is still res judicata. The 3 concurring justices concurred in the denial of the en banc because they trusted that the res judicata principles would remain undisturbed. And then there's Newmann, who is even more outspoken on this issue.


    To the extent that this principle has changed with yesterday's Fresenius decision, this is probably a decent en banc candidate with significant support for res judicata.
    Jul 3 01:03 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Will Judge Jackson Handle Google's Confirmed Workaround?‎ [View article]
    Alan why do you despise them on philosophical grounds? I have never worked for or represented a troll/NPE, and have battled many. I never had a problem with the NPE thing itself. The problem is some of the economic distortions, questionable assertions, extortions, and shady cases that you often see - the bad tactics. VRNG seems to have a reasonably good case.

    If you do not like trolls, isn't that like saying you should be able to infringe a valid and infringed patent because the person bought the asset or because you don't like their business model? How are traders more virtuous? Should a trader be prevented from re-selling a stock or taking a dividend because he did not create the underlying asset and his model is to buy the rights and cash in - i.e., enforce?

    What about someone who does not make movies or music, but buys the rights to a catalog for the royalties? Do you have a problem with that? Are beatles songs free now because MJ did not create them?

    Intresting area of thought and debate.
    May 14 11:48 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Will Judge Jackson Handle Google's Confirmed Workaround?‎ [View article]
    Where is the legal analysis? Why don't you publish your names on your website or on SA?

    Before anyone gets worked up about Google's representations about the system it threw the switch on three days ago, don't forget Google's original position: its old system did not infringe either. In fact, they claimed noninfringement was so clear that they filed for summary judgment, and for judgment as a matter of law. Turns out they were wrong about that. And about validity. And about damages. And they had the same obligations to the court as they do now.

    I am not saying that the workaround does or does not infringe, but one thing is for sure, you can't take Google's word for it. One sided arguments always sound pretty good.

    And the '420 final office action should not be a major factor in the royalty determination, because the '664 is unaffected, so Google's bargaining position is no better even assuming the '420 is out (which would be a premature assumption) - it still faces valid claims.

    Love the disclosure: "Some members hedged against those risks by buying put options, which were closed as well." Combined with yesterday's disclosure the translation is: We bet wrong that the stock would drop below $2.50 after Google's motion, and closed our losing trade today.
    May 14 10:07 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Values Vringo At $200 Billion [View article]
    JJ has done an very good job on this heavily litigated case. He manages hundreds of cases on his docket--many of them involving much more serious issues than patent infringement and day traders (murders, drug trafficking, prison conditions, police brutality)--so don't expect him to care too much about what the VRNG longs say on internet bulletin boards.

    His rulings have been extremely timely, and accurate from a legal perspective.

    It's incredible that a bunch of traders/gamblers show up without an understanding of the legal system and expect everything to change for them, and it is disgraceful and pathetic for anyone to allege or give credence to allegations that a Federal Judge is "on the take" without actual evidence.

    Apr 22 01:52 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Values Vringo At $200 Billion [View article]
    This is wrong as a matter of law. For example, see Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
    Apr 22 01:29 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Showdown Or Workaround [View article]
    "There's no doubt in this author's mind that Quinn honestly relayed what Google said they possessed."

    I can tell you with 100% confidence that the statement that you are referring to is the result of Quinn's very careful and deliberate crafting (i.e., spinning).

    Also, your profile says you worked "in the legal sector" of O&G, but I have suspected for some time that you aren't a lawyer. Please confirm.

    This article does nothing more than restate what others (including you in your last article) have already said. I wish people would stop writing articles just to hear themselves speak. Do some work or analysis and make an actual contribution if you want to write an article.
    Apr 21 09:07 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo V. Google: $350+ Million That Is Not Coming Back [View article]
    The motions together comprise hundreds of pages. Tuesday was the first business day after the briefings on multiple motions were completed. Please don't take this the wrong way, but that is an unreasonable expectation. If you look at open interest in VRNG options, that will tell you what the market's view on timing is.
    Feb 22 10:12 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo V. Google: $350+ Million That Is Not Coming Back [View article]
    What did you think was going to happen yesterday?
    Feb 21 01:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo V. Google: $350+ Million That Is Not Coming Back [View article]
    What day did you think today was going to be?
    Feb 20 06:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo V. Google: $350+ Million That Is Not Coming Back [View article]
    p.s. I have not been following it closely, but I am gearing up for the VHC/Cisco trial in March. One of my former partners may be attending it for me. Should be interesting.
    Feb 15 01:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo V. Google: $350+ Million That Is Not Coming Back [View article]
    Alan,
    I'm glad Vringo hasn't lost you, even though it is boring these days. To answer your question, on the afternoon of the 30th, Vringo made an oral motion for no laches after Google had rested its case. The judge heard arguments, then ruled the next morning that there was laches. He may have been prompted to act by the VRNG motion the day before, but the transcript indicates that he was waiting until both side's evidence was in before ruling.
    Feb 15 01:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
More on GOOG by Adam Gill
COMMENTS STATS
135 Comments
193 Likes