Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On 'Patent Trolls' [View article]
    The Parkervision (NASDAQ:PRKR) case is far from over, as they have appealed the District Court judge's decision to overturn the jury's verdict of infringement. Thus, the Court of Appeals may very likely do the reverse of what it did to VRNG, which is take a District Court LOSS and turn it in to a WIN (as opposed to taking VRNG's district court WIN and turning it in to a LOSS). That's what the Court of Appeals can do, completely flip cases.
    Aug 17, 2014. 01:42 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On 'Patent Trolls' [View article]
    Note: Judge Chen DISSENTED from the opinion of the court, which was written by Judges Wallach and Mayer. Please don't attack CHEN when he would have AFFIRMED the validity of the patents.
    Aug 17, 2014. 01:40 PM | 20 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On 'Patent Trolls' [View article]
    Judge Chen DISSENTED from the opinion of the court, which was written by Judges Wallach and Mayer. Please don't attack CHEN when he would have AFFIRMED the validity of the patents.
    Aug 17, 2014. 01:40 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    Not only can Dalton's decision on infringement be reversed, it doesn't even get any deference. The Court of Appeals will consider whether there was enough evidence in the record to support the jury's finding of infringement on its own, without any regard for Dalton's opinion. Thus, whether he ruled for QCOM, for PRKR, or didn't rule at all, it makes no difference to PRKR's chance of winning on appeal. Had he ruled for PRKR, they'd still look at the issue with no deference to Dalton.
    Aug 7, 2014. 01:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    I'm surprised it's not at zero. Every day brings a new low and it'll surely never recover. A wise person would be shorting it with every penny they can get their hands on. Easy money.
    Aug 6, 2014. 10:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    The IPRs have not been filed against all four of the patents found to be infringed by QCOM by the jury. Thus, even if they are successful, PRKR will still have a patent that was found to be infringed by the jury. Thus, if the Federal Circuit reverses Dalton's misguided and incorrect decision from Monday and reinstates the jury verdict, the outcome of the IPRs is irrelevant.
    Jun 26, 2014. 02:11 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision: Investors Need To Watch Both The Courts And The USPTO Over Next 18 Months [View article]
    Under a decision from the Federal Circuit earlier this month, Consumer Watchdog v Wisconsin Alumni, third party requesters of IPRs do not have standing to appeal to the Federal Circuit if they lose at the Patent Office unless they themselves are potential infringers, which does not apply to RPX or Farmwald. But, Parkervision does have the right to appeal if they lose at the PTO. Thus, Parkervision only need win at either the PTO or the Federal Circuit for its patents to stand, whereas RPX/Farmwald has to win both at the PTO and the Federal Circuit.
    Jun 26, 2014. 02:09 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    Look at what happened in October, when the stock dropped from 7 to 2.50 after the damages verdict. Within a month it was back at 4. Give it a few weeks to settle from the disruption of momentum traders who know nothing about the company and we'll see where it is.

    To anyone who wants to short PRKR at 1.40, God bless them. That means they think (1) PRKR has less than a 1/3 chance of winning the appeal (because if they win they get not only the 170M in back damages, they also will get an ongoing royalty worth at least that much) and (2) PRKR's other patents and suit against QCOM is worth zero.
    Jun 25, 2014. 11:18 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    P.S. For an example of a district court grant of JMOL of noninfringement being reversed by the appeals court, see http://bit.ly/1yH56mb.
    Jun 23, 2014. 08:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    Parkervision has exactly the same chances of winning on appeal now as it did yesterday, or if Dalton had denied the motion today and upheld the jury verdict. That's because the Court of Appeals does not give his opinion on whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict any deference whatsoever. See http://bit.ly/1yH0oEQ. Thus, under whatever scenario you assume, Parkervision has to prove to the Court of Appeals that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence in the record.

    As for Judge Dalton, I wonder how you feel about his decision to deny the JMOL of invalidity. Is he wrong about that, but right about the infringement one? He also denied the summary judgment motions prior to trial, which was his way of saying it was possible for either side to win at trial on the various issues. All the shorts who now sing Dalton's praises were just last week saying he was surely going to get reversed on appeal.

    And if my opinion on a legal issue like this is odd to you, that's a result of your lack of experience with legal matters, not a result of me being incorrect.
    Jun 23, 2014. 07:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    Today's decision is also pragmatically irrelevant, because whether Judge Dalton overturned the jury verdict of infringement or not, the case would then go to the Court of Appeals, which does not give his decision today any deference. Parkervision wasn't going to see any money from QCOM (or anyone else IMHO) unless/until the Federal Circuit affirmed the verdict. Thus, why I say the decision today was irrelevant (whether he granted or denied it). All that matters is what the Court of Appeals decides. To put it another way, had Judge Dalton denied QCOM's motion, I'm sure they (and PRKR shorts) would be saying the Court of Appeals would kill Parker's case. Now that Dalton ruled for QCOM, the PRKR shorts dismiss the Court of Appeals as being just a rubber stamp, which they surely are not. Anyone who thinks today's decision changed anything for Parker doesn't understand the legal process and the standard of review on JMOL motions (which gives the DCT no deference whatsoever). If the Court of Appeals thinks there was enough evidence in the record for the jury to find infringement, they will reinstate the verdict and reverse Dalton's decision today. Even had he denied the motion, QCOM would surely argue the issue on appeal, and PRKR would still have to prove exactly the same thing (that there was enough evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict). Again, today's decision changed nothing.
    Jun 23, 2014. 05:17 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stick A Fork In ParkerVision For The Time Being [View article]
    It is not correct to say that there will definitely need to be a new trial if the Court of Appeals reverses Judge Dalton's decision today to overturn the jury's verdict of infringement. The Federal Circuit can simply say he should have denied the motion and moved on to award an ongoing royalty.
    Jun 23, 2014. 05:07 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Celgene Markman Order released [View news story]
    The judge sided with Celgene on the 2027 hemihydrate polymorph patent and the 2024 anhydrous polymorph patents, while siding with Actavis on the 2016 compound patents and one of the 2025 anhydrous polymorph patents. Actavis conceded to Celgene's arguments on the 2023 method patents on the eve of the Markman hearing. These rulings will make it very difficult for Actavis to argue its generic forms do not infringe the 2027, 2024 and 2023 patents. Losing on the 2016 patents is meaningless since that's only two years from now anyways.
    May 27, 2014. 01:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Thoughts On The Celgene Revlimid Markman Hearing [View article]
    I don't opine on market value, stock price, etc., as I'm not a financial advisor. All I do is provide my thoughts on pending legal matters that may be material to public companies and disclose my own position in the related securities.
    May 17, 2014. 09:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Thoughts On The Celgene Revlimid Markman Hearing [View article]
    You're welcome, Ray. I'm glad you found my article useful. There are no deadlines on the judge, but, yes, I expect a Markman opinion from her in 2-3 months. As for settlement, I would assume the parties are at least considering it, and it's always something that's possible, but I'm not sure there's any zone of overlap in expectations and desires such that a deal could get done, at least not at this point. There are just too many open issues on which the parties surely disagree (i.e. claim construction, infringement, validity, multiple patents, FDA approval, etc.).
    May 17, 2014. 09:25 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
378 Comments
415 Likes