Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Did Palo Alto Really 'Win' Juniper Patent Decision? [View article]
    I'm Jewish, so saying you're sorry doesn't do anything for me. Too many people think they can act horribly and then alleviate themselves by simply saying they're sorry later. I don't accept that behavior. Your comment was unacceptable, both in tone and content, for a professional forum like this. If you want to criticize my points, please do. I actually like having flaws and weaknesses pointed out in my arguments, so I can improve them. But, more importantly, you said in your comment that you were invested in PANW and "hope" the court will not issue an injunction against it. "Hope" is perhaps the single worst basis to make an investment that exists. It's borderline gambling. Your investment decisions should have nothing to do with "hope". They should be based on a rational analysis of the possibilities, taking in to account all risks. Hopium will put you on a path to financial ruin.
    Feb 13 08:24 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Palo Alto Really 'Win' Juniper Patent Decision? [View article]
    You could not be more wrong on the facts of the Apple v Samsung matter. The recent jury award of $290M was in addition to amounts previously awarded. The total amount of damages for past infringement that Samsung must pay to Apple is close to $900M. See http://cnet.co/1bqh1wt. Further, as for future infringement, there may very well be an injunction put in place, as Apple renewed its motion in December. See http://bit.ly/1bqh1ww.

    As for appeal, that's a very real possibility, but at this point, Palo Alto's chance of winning on appeal if it loses at trial are about the same as Juniper's would be if it loses at trial. So, that factor is a wash in the analysis.

    But, if you're so confident that there's no way Palo Alto can be enjoined, please offer the company an insurance policy. I have no doubt that they'd pay you a couple hundred dollars for you to put up your house and your car and all your other assets to protect them from that eventuality. And that'd be a free couple hundred dollars to you, because there's no risk of an injunction, right? I'm being snarky, but I think I make my point pretty clearly. For all you, and others, want to say a black swan event is impossible, in reality, it very much is. For you to not include that risk in your investment analysis is flawed and risky.
    Feb 12 09:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Palo Alto Really 'Win' Juniper Patent Decision? [View article]
    Your condescension is both misplaced and a sign of insecurity. First, the injunction would be against Palo Alto, not its customers, in that Palo Alto would be enjoined from making or selling any further infringing devices. For infringing devices already sold to customers, a jury would determine how much damages should be awarded for those past acts of infringement. Further, the judge would only grant the injunction if it was in the public interest, so impacting the operating capacity of critical government agencies may very well be something she would not choose to do. However, she could issue an injunction against sales to private clients. And, you're assuming that no one else can sell comparable devices to the government agencies, which I highly doubt. There are many competitors that could easily fill the void left by an injunction against Palo Alto. In closing, if you want to have a civil discussion, I'm happy to do it. If you want to instead act like a sniveling little internet troll hiding behind anonymity because you don't have the guts to disclose your true identity like I and other commenters here have, please take your cowardice elsewhere. This is a forum for adults only. If anything, your message, with is misunderstanding of the law and its disrespectful tone only further convinces me of the weakness of your position.
    Feb 12 09:14 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Palo Alto Really 'Win' Juniper Patent Decision? [View article]
    krobert2, Thank you for your kind words. Like I say above, I don't give price estimates or make any buy/sell recommendations, as I'm not a financial analyst. All I can do is disclose my position, which I've done. I note, though, that Palo Alto jumped from 60 to 67 on Thursday after the decision was issued, then on Friday it retraced intraday back to 64, before closing at 66. Yesterday it regained 69. So, that's a 15% jump since mid day Thursday when the decision was released. I think that is undeserved, because the opinion was effectively neutral for the parties. I think the jump was caused by the misleading one sided press release issued by Palo Alto, and not neutralized by any corresponding press release by Juniper or intelligent reporting on the decision.
    Feb 12 02:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Palo Alto Really 'Win' Juniper Patent Decision? [View article]
    Tao, Thank you for your comments, which I understand and appreciate. As for why Juniper did not put out a press release, I can only hypothesize, but I'd assume it has to do with the fact that the ruling was part good and part bad, and they didn't want to either publicly admit the bad portions or do what Palo Alto did, which is only acknowledge the good parts. As for the case taking time to resolve, that is true to some extent, but it is also possible that the jury could return an infringement verdict by mid March and the judge could be asked to implement an injunction thereafter, which could be in place while any appeals are taking place. While the payment of damages are often postponed on appeal, the implementation of an injunction frequently is not. We'll have to see how that all plays out.
    Feb 12 02:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Palo Alto Really 'Win' Juniper Patent Decision? [View article]
    Thanks, Justin. I don't make buy/sell recommendations or price predictions. That's for financial advisers to do and I'm not one. All I can tell you is what I did. I bought some $VRNG shares last week when it hit $4, but sold Feb $4.50 covered calls, so my basis is below $4. If my shares get called away, I'll take a 12% one month gain and wait for another dip. If not, $4 should be a pretty solid floor on the variance. I change my positions frequently, though, so by time you read this, it could be different.
    Feb 12 01:00 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BRCA Patent Owners and Gene by Gene, Ltd. Resolve Patent Suit [View article]
    What a huge sign of weakness for Myriad. If they really had GBG dead to rights, they wouldn't settle and give them anything. They'd demand a consent judgment admission of guilt. We also don't know if Myriad paid GBG cash to settle the case or what the other financial terms are, such as the royalty, if any, GBG has to pay for the international license.
    Feb 7 09:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: How To Lose At Winning [View article]
    I don't believe "When the stock hit a top of a mere $5.86 early in the session" is accurate. The high yesterday was only $5.45.
    Jan 30 10:40 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    Courts are bound by all existing precedent from their own court and any higher court. Thus, the Federal Circuit is bound to follow the Galderma case. Lawyers can argue the binding precedent is inapplicable, i.e. is not "on point" as you say, but they cannot, I repeat, cannot argue the case is not binding precedent.
    Jan 30 08:02 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Internet Patents Corporation Provides Business Update [View article]
    PTNT filed its opening appeal brief to get its e-Commerce "Dynamic Tab" cases reinstated: http://bit.ly/1b87vYU.
    Jan 29 01:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Internet Patent Corporation: No Downside Risk, Let The Upside Take Care Of Itself [View article]
    FYI, PTNT filed its opening appeal brief to get its e-Commerce "Dynamic Tab" cases reinstated: http://bit.ly/1b87vYU.
    Jan 29 01:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    What is your basis for saying, "... deuterated dex/3-4 mg of quinidine which would be a new chemical entity with its own long lasting patents." I don't think getting patents on such a combination that will stand up in court (and thus be "long lasting") is a safe assumption.
    Jan 20 09:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    22 contracts at .35 is only $770, not $1160. Also, you may be forced to buy the stock at 2.65 and the stock may be worth less than a dollar for quite some time. That could be a loss 4-5K. So, you're risking, say 4.5K to make 770, which is not a favorable ratio to me. I prefer situations where I can at most lose 770 and possibly make 4-5K.
    Jan 19 09:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    There is zero chance of a settlement coming out of the court ordered conference. Zero.
    Jan 19 09:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    If Judge Stark rules for Avanir, he likely will issue an injunction to bar entry during any appeal by the generics. If he rules for the generics, he likely will not issue an injunction. Thus, the issue of an injunction on appeal collapses into the issue of which side he rules for. It's not a separate issue to consider.

    As for what Avanir may do upon permanent entry of a generic, that's a complicated analysis and different pharmaceutical companies do different things. Few concede the market and go generic themselves. Most will cut off all advertising and sales spending, but maintain their brand version of the drug, while perhaps also authorizing one generic manufacturer. It's a very complicated and dynamic analysis.

    If Avanir has FDA exclusivity, they need not also have patent exclusivity. Either one can bar entry of a generic competitor. So, I do indeed expect them to continue to seek FDA based exclusivity, such as orphan drug status.
    Jan 13 10:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
378 Comments
411 Likes