Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
Untrue, as I disclosed "VRNG is, in my opinion, highly volatile, as is the litigation process in which it is involved. Therefore, I may change my position in VRNG at any moment for any reason." I have always complied with all laws and SA rules.
Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
I say in this article that I think the 25% jump was an overreaction. Thus, how on earth could I have predicted it? I expected the stock would move up, yes, that's why I was long, and I said so. Up 20% in 6 hours and 25% in 24 hours? No, I did not expect that. I don't even think the stock moved that much after the verdict was read.
Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
I have violated no rule, read my disclosures, which say "VRNG is, in my opinion, highly volatile, as is the litigation process in which it is involved. Therefore, I may change my position in VRNG at any moment for any reason."
Google Flip Flops, Concedes Vringo Entitled To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
For readers of this article, please see my followup article from today, "Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop?" at http://seekingalpha.co....
Well, if hiring a law firm is the most exciting development for your company over the course of several months, that does say something.
On Markman, the judge is relatively new to the bench and doesn't seem to have much experience with patent matters. So, adding that to the complexity in the case (number of patents, type of technology, etc.), I'm not surprised it's taking a while for him to issue his claim construction order.
The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
I was extremely constructive throughout my coverage of this case and that lead people to make personal attacks on me, and my religion. There were even death threats on Yahoo MB and a picture of my apartment. Don't blame me for the way I've been treated by VRNG longs. I have not personally attacked anyone, not will I. This article doesn't cite any legal authority or analysis to rebuke. It's merely a parroting of the arguments in Vringo's brief responding to Google's position on the damages and royalty award, which I address in my prior article.
As to your questions, the deadline to file motions via ECF is generally 11:59pm on the day they are due. If any motion needs to be filed in paper, it is usually due COB for the court. These are the rules generally unless the Judge's individual practices or some order in the case states otherwise.
As for appeal, either side has 30 days to file Notice of Appeal once the District Court enters final judgment. FRAP 4(a). As I've said before, I expect Vringo to appeal the laches decision and Google to appeal the validity and infringement issues, at minimum.
The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
I have also written pro-VirnetX articles. Not all patent holders are the same. Some get $300M+ verdicts (VirnetX) and others get one-tenth as much (Vringo). Like I said, good luck with the hope.
The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
I haven't attacked the author at all. The title of this article alone "Judge SHOULD Rule" is hope and hype, and the copy and pasting of Vringo's reply brief doesn't add anything substantive. This is opinion that Vringo is right, just like all those who were so confident the jury would award them hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in damages, when they ended up only awarding a measly $31M (not even the $32 the author here says). But, it's a free country, so keep hoping ... as the stock has dropped 20% since verdict.
Vringo Vs. Google: An Analysis Of The USPTO Re-Examination Debate [View article]
I admit that I was mistaken about the judge not having yet ruled on obviousness. I note that in the comments of my article and apologized for it. It was not intentional. However, I do assume throughout my article (and my previous writings on the case) that Vringo's would win in court on the obviousness issue, so it doesn't really have any impact on my analysis or opinion. You say that my article contained “patently false statements”, and yet you identify only that one. Can you identify any others? I don't see any, and you do say repeatedly how what I've said is correct. I will just caution you that saying I am a liar is per se defamation, so I would be very careful about doing so.
With respect to the insinuation that I have a financial conflict of interest, I flatly deny those allegations. I have given two public talks at Google, as you cite. They neither paid me for those talks, nor even covered by travel expenses. While a client and organization I am affiliated with may have received donations from Google, I can assure you I had nothing to do with that and have never received any direct payment from them. I've never even had a conversation with anyone from Google about this case. When I tried to ask their attorney at trial for a copy of the opening statement slides, he never even sent them to me. Vringo's attorney did.
Regardless, let's assume the total fiction that I'm some paid shill for Google. How does that change the facts or law applicable to Vringo's patents and revenue expectations? And how does me expressing my opinions help Google exactly? Am I supposed to be having an effect on the court case? I frankly doubt Google cares about what the public thinks about Vringo. All they care about is what the judge and then the appeals court thinks.
OK, so after you finish attacking my character, which I don't see how it has any impact on Vringo, you then get on to the substance of my article. Here, you misrepresent one of my statements, wrongly alleging that I said the granting of the reexamination request was “quite an admission.” But if you read my article, you see that it's not the granting of the request that I said was “quite an admission”, but instead said, “This was quite an admission by the PTO, to say that the Examiner who issued these claims did so without a specific reason.” It was the admission that the Examiner who issued the patents didn't give a specific reason that was quite significant in my mind.
In response to my opinion, you cite a statement by Vringo. OK, fair enough, but that doesn't prove I'm wrong. It's just their opinion versus mine. And remember, their opinion was that they were entitled to $493M in damages, when my opinion was they were entitled to $95M, and the jury awarded only $31M. So, who was way off base on that one?
You also misunderstand the difference between a “Final Office Action” and a “final decision by the UPSTO.” Final Office Actions are not always the end of the matter, due to appeal rights, etc. I said in my article that I expected a FOA to be issued in the near future, and I do.
Regarding the '664 patent, I say in my article that only a request has been made, and that the PTO has not yet granted the request, much less issued an Office Action. So, I'm not sure why you say I was misleading about that fact.
You say the burden of proof issue is already baked into the statistics of reexamination outcomes, which I would agree with, but then bring up the point that ex parte is less favorable than the other type of reexamination called “inter partes”. But that is irrelevant, as the data I cited was exclusively for ex parte reexamination, so the same issue was baked in to the statistics too. You're guilty of doing the same thing you say I did.
Lastly, you insinuate that I said Vringo would have to refund any monies paid to Google prior to any PTO revocation of the patents, but I said the exact opposite in my article, “However, to avoid any confusion, a canceling or changing of the patents by the PTO would not require a refund of any monies paid by Google to Vringo prior to that time.”
Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
Why are you sweating me so hard? How about paying attention to Vringo, as that's who you're invested in. Sweating me only proves you have nothing to say in response to what I say about Vringo and that I'm completely right.
Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
Alan, I discuss both of these in the article. Did you not read it? I say it'll take the PTO a couple months to act and I also say the PTO canceling claims doesn't require a refund of any monies already paid.
Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
Why are you talking about me? You're not invested in me. You're invested in Vringo. Talk about them and their patents and their measly $31M verdict when they said they'd get $493M. Please, prove something I've said is wrong. If you can't, you're admitting I'm right.
Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
Did Vringo Traders Overreact To Google's Flip Flop? [View article]
Google Flip Flops, Concedes Vringo Entitled To Ongoing Royalties [View article]
ParkerVision Unlikely To Be Bought [View article]
On Markman, the judge is relatively new to the bench and doesn't seem to have much experience with patent matters. So, adding that to the complexity in the case (number of patents, type of technology, etc.), I'm not surprised it's taking a while for him to issue his claim construction order.
The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
As to your questions, the deadline to file motions via ECF is generally 11:59pm on the day they are due. If any motion needs to be filed in paper, it is usually due COB for the court. These are the rules generally unless the Judge's individual practices or some order in the case states otherwise.
As for appeal, either side has 30 days to file Notice of Appeal once the District Court enters final judgment. FRAP 4(a). As I've said before, I expect Vringo to appeal the laches decision and Google to appeal the validity and infringement issues, at minimum.
The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions [View article]
Vringo Vs. Google: An Analysis Of The USPTO Re-Examination Debate [View article]
With respect to the insinuation that I have a financial conflict of interest, I flatly deny those allegations. I have given two public talks at Google, as you cite. They neither paid me for those talks, nor even covered by travel expenses. While a client and organization I am affiliated with may have received donations from Google, I can assure you I had nothing to do with that and have never received any direct payment from them. I've never even had a conversation with anyone from Google about this case. When I tried to ask their attorney at trial for a copy of the opening statement slides, he never even sent them to me. Vringo's attorney did.
Regardless, let's assume the total fiction that I'm some paid shill for Google. How does that change the facts or law applicable to Vringo's patents and revenue expectations? And how does me expressing my opinions help Google exactly? Am I supposed to be having an effect on the court case? I frankly doubt Google cares about what the public thinks about Vringo. All they care about is what the judge and then the appeals court thinks.
OK, so after you finish attacking my character, which I don't see how it has any impact on Vringo, you then get on to the substance of my article. Here, you misrepresent one of my statements, wrongly alleging that I said the granting of the reexamination request was “quite an admission.” But if you read my article, you see that it's not the granting of the request that I said was “quite an admission”, but instead said, “This was quite an admission by the PTO, to say that the Examiner who issued these claims did so without a specific reason.” It was the admission that the Examiner who issued the patents didn't give a specific reason that was quite significant in my mind.
In response to my opinion, you cite a statement by Vringo. OK, fair enough, but that doesn't prove I'm wrong. It's just their opinion versus mine. And remember, their opinion was that they were entitled to $493M in damages, when my opinion was they were entitled to $95M, and the jury awarded only $31M. So, who was way off base on that one?
You also misunderstand the difference between a “Final Office Action” and a “final decision by the UPSTO.” Final Office Actions are not always the end of the matter, due to appeal rights, etc. I said in my article that I expected a FOA to be issued in the near future, and I do.
Regarding the '664 patent, I say in my article that only a request has been made, and that the PTO has not yet granted the request, much less issued an Office Action. So, I'm not sure why you say I was misleading about that fact.
You say the burden of proof issue is already baked into the statistics of reexamination outcomes, which I would agree with, but then bring up the point that ex parte is less favorable than the other type of reexamination called “inter partes”. But that is irrelevant, as the data I cited was exclusively for ex parte reexamination, so the same issue was baked in to the statistics too. You're guilty of doing the same thing you say I did.
Lastly, you insinuate that I said Vringo would have to refund any monies paid to Google prior to any PTO revocation of the patents, but I said the exact opposite in my article, “However, to avoid any confusion, a canceling or changing of the patents by the PTO would not require a refund of any monies paid by Google to Vringo prior to that time.”
Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]