Seeking Alpha

Matias Castro

View as an RSS Feed
View Matias Castro's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo's Billion-Dollar Win At Hand [View article]
    Judges cannot increase past damages unless it was a clear math error. The legal term would be additur. The reasoning behind it (even though I do not agree with it) is that a judge cannot award something that has not been found by the jury. So basically bringing down a monetary award is fine because a jury actual found that amount (if it makes any sense) while adding would be going beyond what any jury found. It is more likely that a judge actually remands for a new trial just on past damages.
    Apr 8 12:03 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: An Analysis Of The USPTO Re-Examination Debate [View article]
    Over turning a jury verdict is the hardest thing to do!! The appellate court can only look at mistakes of law. The jury had to believe more reasonably than not that the patents were valid. Meaning more than 50%

    I am sorry but this case is over. GOOG is guilty and they will pay. In less than a month we will now exactly how much. 600mi in future royalties coming soon.
    Dec 15 02:03 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: An Analysis Of The USPTO Re-Examination Debate [View article]
    I am sorry but saying someone is a liar might not be defamation because it could well be a statement of opinion. Also, if he is actually telling the truth it would also not be defamation since the provably false assertion is indeed true. Also you might be considered a public person so we would need to add that if it actually is true that what he said about you was a lie that it was with an intent to do harm or with reckless disregard of the truth. However, there should be some hyperbolic language added like Dan told a big fat lie to make it even more like a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact.
    Dec 15 12:47 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: An Analysis Of The USPTO Re-Examination Debate [View article]
    JJ Final verdict very likely before the end of year. But for certain before the second week of January. GOOG appeal would right after. ZTE litigation starts in February.
    Dec 14 11:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: An Analysis Of The USPTO Re-Examination Debate [View article]
    Thank you so much for your article!! I was going to write one in response to Dan's article just like this (not as good as yours), but I am currently taking finals so time is scarce to say the least. Anyway, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE ARTICLE AGAIN!! EXCELLENT WORK!!
    Dec 14 10:41 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    Ok so here is your answer to your excellent question and the incorrect fact assertions made by Dan.

    "if a federal court awards relief to a patent holder against an infringer, a subsequent reexamination decision that the patent is invalid does not disturb the judgment of the court or alter its binding effect on the parties."
    Dec 14 10:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    @Modernist so far I have taken your comments as compliments I hope I am getting the correct impression.
    Dec 14 10:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    Well the USPTO would not cancel the patents. They would just say that they are invalid. I am not 100% sure how it works. But I believe that if they are found to be invalid, then GOOG would not have to keep paying after that. However, USPTO usually takes a lot longer than 18 months. So VRNG should not have an issue. I will definitely do some more research when I am done with Finals.
    Dec 14 09:37 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    Well the courts follow federal holidays. So the only federal holidays left this year are the 25th of December and the 2nd of January. The rest of the days it is open, so I expect him to work on the case. It is Christmas time so It could be that JJ decides to wait it out. No one really knows at this point. But it is likely that we get a ruling before the end of the year.
    Dec 14 09:31 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    From what I hear no. Also the one thing that ZTE would be worried about is the injunction of the patents.
    Dec 13 10:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    I belive that once the JJ rules on future damages, which will very likely be 3.5-4%, that the stock will double ($6). However, I think there will be a bit of profit taking and will close around $5. Next, big thing will be ZTE lawsuit. Most likely that case will settle and in that case stock could easily go to $8.
    Dec 13 06:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    I believe GOOG filed two motions today. On in response to Vringo's past response. I am not sure the 19th will be the day. But I strongly believe he will announce the award before the end of year.
    Dec 13 04:09 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    Yes in fact, on possible theory, which I have argued before, is that the jury intended to give GOOG less in the amount to be paid in cash now due to the fact that they are the only one's that the ongoing royalty rate will apply to. In other words, GOOG will be the only one having future damages. There was a question asked by the jury before the jury verdict. The question asked if the on going royalty rate was a separate amount to be given as to the cash to be paid now. I am not sure what else might explain the difference. But again it is a theory. The decimal point theory is also valid.
    Dec 13 04:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    The judge has 60 days after the jury verdict. So that would be around the second week of January. Last minute would be after 57 days. Judges rarely take that long because they can be removed by bad behavior. If they get reported enough for taking their sweet time then of course that would be considered bad behavior. But if we look at judge Jackson's record he does not wait until the last minute.
    Dec 13 03:44 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Future Damages At Ongoing Royalty Rate Of 3.5% Very Likely [View article]
    Most likely he will not change past damages. He will only do so if there is a clear error/ simple error. The jury might have intended so little in past damages for GOOG because they will the only one's that have the ongoing royalty rate. If you look at the questions the ongoing royalty rate is only for GOOG. So the on going royalty would be used when deciding future damages. The judge will probably grant more in future damages in my opinion. Maybe 4%.
    Dec 13 03:10 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
48 Comments
45 Likes