Seeking Alpha

Chris Grunewald

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Chris Grunewald's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    Thank you for the kind words/critiques LegalGuy. Very interesting; I didn't know the "regular" procedure, if you will, of when district ct judges would stay the proceedings pending a USPTO reexamination. I am wondering your thoughts on the debate discussed above: Let's hypothetically say the USPTO rejects all relevant claims to the '420 and '664 patents before a final judicial ruling is entered. Do you think the Fed Circ (or JJ) would break the Reexamination Clause of the 7th Amendment and go with the USPTO's findings of invalidity (non-patentability), or uphold the jury's validity ruling?

    Thanks,

    CG
    May 5, 2013. 11:06 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    Did you read this article? Clear precedent of USPTO trumping DC ruling. Also, "final judicial decision(like what google just lost to in court)" is a false statement; a jury verdict in a civil case is not a "final" judicial decision.
    May 5, 2013. 11:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Google Going Out On A Limb With Quest For Vringo Reexamination? [View article]
    Hi PatentNews, interesting article. However, the USPTO already issued their non-final rejection back on September 25, 2012. Friday's was their final response; now VRNG has time to submit a response to the USPTO and/or appeal to the PTAB. Hopefully we will hear about how '664 is preceding soon.

    CG
    May 5, 2013. 11:00 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    KP,

    The district court has the option (acc'd to George Washington Law source, it's more popular than not) to stay the proceedings until the USPTO finishes their re-examination process. Could very well be the argument GOOG makes in their upcoming [822] Response brief.

    CG
    May 4, 2013. 09:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    FYI, from Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 936 (Fed. Cir. 2003) -> “We point
    out that, on remand, a stay of proceedings in the district court pending the outcome of the parallel proceedings in the PTO remains an option within the district court’s discretion.”

    So, Jackson theoretically could, at his discretion, hold his final ruling as USPTO determines invalidity (non-patentabilty). Maybe that is what GOOG plans to cover in their [822] Response. Just thought this would be of interest to people.
    May 4, 2013. 08:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    marpha,

    They very well might be. I don't know what exactly they are appealing since I haven't seen the formal brief (I don't think one is yet available). Just for clarification on your question, are you essentially asking if the Fed Circ can look at the USPTO's invalidity (non-patentability) decision for reference when deciding upon an appeal based on the underlying validity?

    If so, based on the Translogic precedent, it is applicable. Let's reference the timeline (http://bit.ly/10ayrWX):

    1.) Translogic sued Hitachi for infringement and won
    2.) Hitachi asked USPTO to re-examine patent
    3.) USPTO re-examined patent and rejected it (final); Appeal by Translogic
    4.) The Patent Appeal Board affirmed; Translogic appealed
    5.) The Federal Circuit affirmed USPTO’s decision to invalidate the patent

    Both the District Court appeal and the USPTO appeal was heard by the same panel of Fed Circ judges in the Translogic case (http://bit.ly/13V6ssL). So I would imagine they would be able to take cross-information into consideration.
    May 4, 2013. 08:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    Hi ala900,

    Thanks for the interesting tidbit. I think (keep in mind this is not coming from a lawyer) that timing is of the essence. If USPTO invalidity (non-patentability) final decision comes before a final judicial ruling, there are precedents both ways (e.g., Translogic and Baxter International). If a final judicial ruling precedes a USPTO final invalidity (non-patentability) decision, the judicial verdict can't be disturbed.

    That is my analysis. Hope it helps.

    CG
    May 4, 2013. 05:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    Thanks for the kind word sheldond (I think). And yes VRNG is very tradable within this range. Fairly easy to evaluate.

    And as a short-term trader (1-3mos), I like picking trends. I am doing a good amount of research on non-metallic mining (think potash) and SaaS (software-as-a-service) B2B stocks (think EBIX,ECYG). I recently bought PGRX as a potash play, actively looking for more goodies.

    CG
    May 4, 2013. 05:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    well they can settle at any time, VRNG just hasn't given MSFT their formal complaint yet (June 4th).
    May 4, 2013. 05:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    Hey Vito,

    1.) Nope. A stay is not necessary since the relevant patent claims aren't definitively cancelled (In re Bingo Card Minder Corp., No. 534, 1998). Like another poster said earlier, timing is of the essence. However, future royalty payments will be kept in escrow pending the outcome of District Court appeal to the Fed Circuit.

    2.) Nope. If a final court ruling precedes a final USPTO ruling, the final legal ruling can't be disturbed (all appeals exhausted). However, if a USPTO ruling precedes the final judicial ruling, then you have the debate that was discussed in this article: does the Court uphold the jury decision of validity OR the USPTO's decision of invalidity (non-patentability)?

    Hope this helps. More in depth info can be found at http://bit.ly/10aqzPL starting on page 1105.

    CG
    May 4, 2013. 05:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    The ever-so-bullish Mr. Porter,

    Thanks for the read (or maybe not). Did you actually read this article, where there is a precedent of USPTO's ruling of invalidity trumping the District Court's ruling of validity? Or just come down here to discount relevant risks? Probably the latter.
    May 4, 2013. 05:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    Cliff-Fiscal,

    Well said. The Baxter and Translogic cases are contradictory of one another (in my opinion). There needs to be definitive legislature on the relationship btwn the USPTO's claim rejection on grounds of invalidity (non-patentability) and the District Court's ruling on validity.

    CG
    May 4, 2013. 05:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
    Thanks for the read and the kind words jlf.

    As mentioned above, in the Translogic case, the USPTO decision did trump the jury verdict. This is directly contradictory to the Reexamination Clause of the 7th Amendment, but there isn't definitive legislature on the USPTO/District Ct relationship.

    This doesn't do anything to the 10 days. Google could use this as a desperate delay attempt, but it's unlikely that JJ will grant that..especially taken into consideration their past history of trying to get a delay on everything.

    It could be a wording problem, but that would indicate maybe 1 claim getting rejected, not all. That is significant to me. It may be likely that ONE claim needs to be re-worded (V has 2 months to respond/appeal), but all infringed upon claims? That is something to worry about.

    And I'm not a buyer right now. Like I have described in previous articles, I worry about the appeal ($$ goes into escrow during it), the lack of a settlement from MSFT (I don't think it'll happen, especially w/ this '420 news), and now this. Still sticking with my < $4 PT throughout 2013.

    CG
    May 4, 2013. 05:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Not Going Anywhere Fast [View article]
    And they will be; especially when compared to the median damages of patent holder damages in the telecom field (approx 30MM, chart 6c http://pwc.to/OZD9Ci). However, I just don't think this "buy IP for cheap, sue multinational corporations for injunctions/willful damages/ rendering of accounts/destruction of allegedly infringing products/etc" will work for much longer. Just my personal opinion.

    Like Anne Hathaway says in Dark Knight Rises, "a storm is coming, Mr. Wayne"...
    May 1, 2013. 11:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Not Going Anywhere Fast [View article]
    Five years from now I think NPE-companies like VRNG cease to exist. Companies like these don't add any value to the economy, instead, they're like leaches taking capital away from companies that produce the underlying product. This leads to loss of opportunity cost, loss of human capital, not being able to hire people b/c legal fees/costs are too high, etc. They need a sustainable underlying business model/product or they won't be able to operate (in the US at least) IMO. Look @ legislature like the revamped- SHIELD Act.

    And sheldond, let's face it, everyone has been wrong on VRNG, including me. I'm not trying to "confirm my seeds of doubt" and manipulate people. There are actually reasons to be bearish about VRNG (believe it or not). I post my opinion based on the relevant facts and information at hand, and try my best to analyze and write about to help investors of VRNG out. There are MANY pumpers/people who have no clue what they are talking about throwing outrageous price targets out. I am not one of those. If I see something that I think is positive, I will note/write about it. I don't proclaim to be the almighty, all-powerful stock genius. Just my opinion.

    CG
    May 1, 2013. 11:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
115 Comments
53 Likes