Seeking Alpha

Matias Castro's  Instablog

Matias Castro
Send Message
UCLA graduate- BA Political Science- Philosophy Minor- Law School student - Intermediate Investor I am a current law student and investor. I have been investing for about 5 years. I began investing in Apple, but over the years began investing in small bios and companies that were under $5 that... More
View Matias Castro's Instablogs on:
  • Vringo's Rebuttal Key Arguments

    Vringo's Rebuttal

    After some speculation that Vringo (VRNG) might not file a rebuttal to Google's (GOOG) opposition, the rebuttal is finally in. Here is a link for those of you that have not read it (http://www.scribd.com/doc/115975929/Re-Buttle)

    In the rebuttal, Vringo discusses why it should receive past damages and supplemental damages. Since I am currently in Finals Mode, below I will provide what I believe to be some of the key arguments. Although I do not have time to discuss them in detail feel free to comment with any questions you may have.

    MAIN ARGUEMENTS:

    "[T]he patentee is entitled to damages for the entire period of infringement and should therefore be awarded supplemental damages for any periods of infringement not covered by the jury verdict."

    Defendants are silent on the issue of post-judgment interest, and thus have conceded that I/P Engine's request is proper.

    Defendants cite no case law to support their contention that I/P Engine's motion is premature. (Opp. at 2). This is because they cannot.

    Defendants claim that there is a "[rule that unreasonable delay negates entitlement to prejudgment interest." (Opp. at 5). The opposite is in fact true: an award of prejudgment interest is the rule, and the denial of prejudgment interest due to delay "[i]s the exception , not the rule."

    (SAME ARGUMENT I MADE IN A PREVIOUS ARTICLE)

    seekingalpha.com/instablog/5578741-lawtr...

    Prejudgment interest "serves to make the patent owner whole, since his damages consist not only of the value of the royalty payments but also of the foregone use of the money between the time of infringement and the date of the judgment."Id.

    Any alleged evidentiary prejudice is unrelated to this economic concern. Economic prejudice is not at issue in this case.

    There is no justification for applying two different remedies for the same alleged delay.

    Defendants do not and cannot allege that I/P Engine delayed at any time after the filing date of this lawsuit. Because there was no delay or associated prejudice during this time period,

    The sole ground for Defendants' argument is that the verdict form states "what sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash would reasonably compensate I/P Engine for any of defendants past infringement?"(Opp. at 9 (emphasis in original)). According to Defendants, the terms "paid now" and "any past infringement" means that the jury awarded damages for "all" pre-verdict infringement. (Id.) This argument is absurd. It is also wrong as a matter of fact and law. (SAME ARGUMENT I MADE IN A PREVIOUS ARTICLE THAT IT IS STILL PENDING) (HOWEVER I ALSO MENTIONED IT IN A COMMENT TO ONE OF MY ARTICLES)

    It seems clear to me that the questions are very different. The first two focus on a running royalty and damages in general. On the other hand, the third question clearly mentions "past infringement" and amount in cash to be paid now. (Pending Article)

    Disclosure: I am long VRNG.

    Additional disclosure: I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

    Tags: VRNG, GOOG
    Dec 08 3:00 AM | Link | 22 Comments
  • Why Vringo Will Likely Receive The 3.5% On Going Royalty Rate In Future Damages

    Why Vringo will likely receive the 3.5% on going royalty rate in future damages

    By now, many of you probably have read Dan's article "Vringo Verdict And Future Royalties Against Google On Shaky Ground."In the article, Dan insists that Vringo received a verdict for 31M. However, it needs to be clear that this was a jury verdict. The Final verdict is yet to come. The final verdict is the verdict given by the judge and the only one that matters.

    Moreover, Dan says that the jury has not awarded future damages and that is correct. But the jury has awarded an ongoing 3.5% royalty rate, and the judge will take that into account if he decides to award future damages.

    As mentioned countless of time there seems to be a mistake in the jury's calculation for damages. The judge will certainly address this issue and decide what he believes to be reasonable award. So far, Google has argued that the damages received, in comparison to the other defendants, are too large. However, Vringo will of course argue that it works the other way around and Google's damages are too little in comparison to the rest of the defendants and pay more. Vringo's chances look better at this point since all the other defendants were based on the same calculation. The only one which is different is Google's and for that reason I believe it is the incorrect one.

    Lastly, in regards to future royalties, the judge will do what he thinks is reasonable. The judge probably thinks that the jury made a mistake in past damages and for that reason Vringo should get the 3.5% on going royalty rate in future damages based on the 20% add increase.

    Disclosure: I am long VRNG. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

    Tags: earnings
    Dec 05 9:08 PM | Link | 18 Comments
  • Vringo V. Google Analysis On Defendant's Opposition Argument

    Google's Opposition Argument Analysis

    On 11/29/2012 Defendant's filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for an award of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and supplemental damages. Below I will discuss and assess some of the main points from the argument. In doing so, I have divided the sections just like they appear on Defendant's file.

    II Argument (A)

    "A running royalty is not appropriate in this case". The judge is the one who decided to place the question of the running royalty for the jury. That being said, this is like a slap in the judge's face saying you are wrong.

    Furthermore, in this section the defendant argues that the court's resources would be better used if they decided first on the invalidity and infringement rather than the damages. This argument is commonly used and nothing to worry about. Also, if there was a mistake by the jury then it is clearly something that needs to be solved immediately and for that reason the judge will not focus on this.

    B (1)

    "Prejudgment interest should not be awarded in EVERY case where infringement is found" The key words here are "in every case". This means that it might not be appropriate in all cases, but it might be appropriate in some cases. Bottom line the judge is the one to decide.

    "Prejudgment interest, although ordinarily awarded, MAY be denied altogether when a patent owner unduly delays in bringing its lawsuit". Again the key words here are "may be denied", which leaves it up to the judge's discretion.

    C (1)

    Here, Google's argument is not really strong. They are saying that VRNG should not get supplemental damages. However, VRNG is asking for supplemental damages because they believe the jury has made an error in their past damages award. Even Google mentioned that there seems to be an error. Of course Google will argue the error was done in favor of VRNG rather than themselves. But once again the judge is the one that will decide if there was an error at all and what to do with it.

    C (2)

    Here, Google once again talks about the possible error by the jury. Instead of basing the 3.5% on 20.9% of revenue, they argue that the jury applied the 3.5% to only 2.8%. Defendant also says that if there are any supplemental damages to be awarded to Vringo then they should be based on the 2.8% that the jury applied the 3.5% running royalty to. This argument will likely fail. The judge is the one that will see through all this legal bargain and pick out whether there was an error in the jury's math or not. Regardless of what happens he will decided if the award was reasonable or not. If he believes it was reasonable then he will only award what the jury has awarded. But if he believes there was a mistake or that it does not seem reasonable to ask so little of Google in proportion to the rest of the defendants, then he could easily award more in damages (past and/or future)

    In sum, Google's arguments leave it up to the judge's discretion. The judge will do what he believes is fair and reasonable. That being said, there is nothing to worry about. The rules of the game have not changed. Vringo has won the case by jury trial and that is very hard to overturn.

    Disclosure: I am long VRNG. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

    Disclosure: I am long VRNG.

    Additional disclosure: I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

    Tags: VRNG, GOOG
    Nov 30 1:10 PM | Link | 8 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.