Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Might Other Companies Be Liable If Herbalife Is A Pyramid? [View article]
    Suing me would give me the opportunity to get access to all of HLF's internal files and to depose their executives. I'd welcome the chance to do that.
    Feb 5 02:16 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    As a registered patent attorney, I completely disagree with your legal analysis and conclusions, which are flawed and incomplete. But even if one were to assume everything you say is correct, you are only considering here past damages that the jury will award if it finds at least one claim of at least one of Parkervision's four patents in suit infringed and not invalid. If a single claim of a single Parkervision patent is found to be infringed and not invalid, then Parkervision is entitled to not just past damages from the jury, but also ongoing royalties, which the judge will set, and which are required to be at a royalty rate higher than that used by the jury to calculate past damages. You also fail to acknowledge the judge can award Parkervision up to three times the awarded past damages and its attorneys fees if the jury finds Qualcomm's infringement was willful, which seems very likely from the extensive history between the parties, and Qualcomm's own internal emails acknowledging that Parkervision had broad patents on the "holy grail" of down converter technology.
    Oct 14 11:50 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Request To Postpone Vringo Ongoing Royalty Motion Ignored [View article]
    It just doesn't make any sense to me. By now, he has to know that Google has written its opposition brief on the issue. At least he could let them go ahead and submit the brief Friday and if he wanted to stay the motion then and perhaps order supplemental briefing later, he could. I know I look like an idiot on this, which is totally fair, but I just don't see any sense in granting the postponement two days before the brief is due when obviously most of the work to write the brief must be done.
    Jan 23 09:29 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]
    You are indeed correct that I missed the fact that the Judge ruled on obviousness in Vringo's favor. That was an oversight on my part and I apologize.
    Dec 13 11:30 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Outcome Probabilities [View article]
    My article is completely accurate as to my opinion. As to facts that are going to occur in the future, no, I'm not a time traveler. And, yes, I was very neutral throughout my analysis of this case, as eventually the truth will come out. I didn't take a position until the trial was virtually over and then I did so based on my opinion of what the outcome would be. I haven't been emotionally invested in this case at all, and am still not. It's a very small position.
    Nov 1 12:14 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Day 4 Of The Juniper Vs. Palo Alto Patent Trial [View article]
    I could be wrong regardless of whether I am short, or long, or have no position. I only take a position after I am confident in my analysis, though, so the allegation that I purposefully took a short position and then am intentionally spinning everything negatively to comport with my position has no merit. I could easily close my short position or flip to long at any moment I want to. I let my analysis guide my trade, not vice versa.

    And let me ask, do you refuse to believe anything negative because you are long? Do you assume anyone saying anything negative must be wrong because it doesn't confirm your position? That's called confirmation bias and reeks throughout the investment world.
    Mar 3 03:11 PM | 6 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
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    Even wikipedia says you've had a personal hatred of Parkervision since 2005. Care to tell us why? What did they do to you?
    Oct 15 12:29 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    Well, I guess we'll see what the jury thinks about all that. Although, you still haven't explained why it's Parkervision that's garnered so much of your time and effort. There are plenty of bogus patents and unsuccessful companies around. Why'd you pick them?
    Oct 15 12:40 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • VirnetX/Apple: What Does Apple Owe? [View article]
    Tom, you're making here the same exact mistake I expect the Court of Appeals will cite for reversing the $368M verdict, i.e. you are using the entire revenue from infringing products as your royalty base. The royalty base can not be all of Apple's infringing revenues. It can only be the portion of Apple's profit attributable to the infringing functionality. But, it seems no one wants to believe me when I say this because they are too wedded to their long positions in VHC. To each his own, I guess.
    Mar 30 09:51 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    I've written several briefs on the issue of willfulness and teach it in my law school class, so I'm more than familiar with the doctrinal developments. It is indeed more difficult to prove, but when you have facts like those in this case, where the infringer had repeated access to the technology, including the patent applications, and whose internal emails concede it was a breakthrough development and the "holy grail", then the case for willfulness seems nearly slam dunk.
    Oct 15 12:26 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    From here forward, for issues on which you say I'm wrong, and I say you're wrong, I'll let the reader decide who they think knows more about what they're talking about, a non-lawyer non-attendee with an apparent personal vendetta against the plaintiff, or a registered patent attorney and law professor who's been in court for the entire trial and has no personal feelings one way or the other towards the parties.
    Oct 15 12:23 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ParkerVision V. Qualcomm: Daubert Ruling And First Week Of Trial [View article]
    As for higher royalty rates to be awarded after a verdict of infringement and no invalidity, see, e.g., ActiveVideo Networks v. Verizon Communications, 694 F. 3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012), which says:

    The district court found that after the patent is held not invalid and infringed by Verizon, ActiveVideo is in a much better bargaining position with Verizon than it was with Cablevision in 2009. Based on the fact that Verizon may be able to design around, but does not know precisely how effective such a design around might be, the court discounted the profit split from the 50/50 to 60/40 (in favor of Verizon). This may seem high, and while it is likely true that Verizon would not have agreed to that amount prior to litigation, Verizon has been adjudicated to infringe and the patent has been held not invalid after a substantial challenge by Verizon. See Paice, 504 F.3d at 1317 (Rader, J., concurring) ("[P]re-suit and post-judgment acts of infringement are distinct, and may warrant different royalty rates given the change in the parties' legal relationship and other factors."); Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362 ("Prior to judgment, liability for infringement, as well as the validity of the patent, is uncertain, and damages are determined in the context of that uncertainty. Once a judgment of validity and infringement has been entered, however, the calculus is markedly different because different economic factors are involved."). The district court is correct; there has been a substantial shift in the bargaining position of the parties. See Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362 ("There is a fundamental difference, however, between a reasonable royalty for pre-verdict infringement and damages for post-verdict infringement."). We reject Verizon's argument that the district court erred in concluding that the jury verdict placed ActiveVideo in a stronger bargaining position.

    We held in Amado that an assessment of prospective damages for ongoing infringement should "take into account the change in the parties' bargaining positions, and the resulting change in economic circumstances, resulting from the determination of liability." Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362. And, although Amado dealt with the imposition of royalty damages while an injunction was stayed during appeal, this holding applies with equal force in the ongoing royalty context.[8] Though we vacate the district court's injunction, we see no error in its post-verdict royalty calculation. The district court, on remand, should determine an appropriate ongoing royalty, an inquiry that is much the same as its sunset royalty analysis. The district court may wish to consider on remand additional evidence of changes in the parties' bargaining positions and other economic circumstances that may be of value in determining an appropriate ongoing royalty. See Paice, 504 F.3d at 1315 ("Upon remand, the court may take additional evidence if necessary to account for any additional economic factors arising out of the imposition of an ongoing royalty."). Indeed, ActiveVideo's bargaining position is even stronger after this appeal. We leave the procedural aspects of how to proceed on the issue of prospective damages to the discretion of the district court.
    Oct 15 12:19 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Dec 18 03:25 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Dec 18 02:59 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment