Seeking Alpha

Patent Plays

View as an RSS Feed
View Patent Plays' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right To Future Royalties From Google? [View article]

    Google can ask for anything and be denied everything. Your blog has captioned every Google favored assertion with little to no corresponding Vringo response. I am going to ask you, as an Attorney, to read thoroughly the Vringo rebuttal and then re-write your article so that those of us who understand the argument will have something "real" to read. Cheers.
    Dec 13, 2012. 10:15 AM | 22 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Nokia's Beaten Down Stock Finally Gets Some Asha [View article]
    Interesting statement "I would not buy Nokia just yet, till I see sustained traction in mobile sales and a return to profitability". Isn’t that the premise of buying unnoticed value? After the sales results demonstrate what you have suggested and what appears to be happening potential new investors will miss the low price entry point. For those risk tolerant investors the time is now, not later
    Dec 19, 2012. 04:17 PM | 16 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Semantic Search Vringo's Next Play? [View article]
    @Just Some Guy

    "The USPTO fulfills the mandate of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the US Constitution "promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries." The strength and vitality of the U.S. economy depends directly on effective mechanisms that protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. "

    Take solace in knowing your absurd ideas, if approved for a patent, would be defended with equal protection. Celebrate that.
    May 2, 2014. 11:42 AM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Proof Positive That Vringo Is Dead Money [View article]
    "Dead money" in what sense?

    At any given moment any of the litigants have the ability to offer a settlement. Has this occurred before among the defendants? Absolutely. ZTE settled with Ericsson after filing Patent Invalidity actions in Europe. Sound familiar?

    Your article seems to follow a reasoning that legal actions in themselves are not catalysts for a quick return and Vringo is far from receiving income from the various lawsuits underway. Yet in the Ericsson patent infringement lawsuit there was an immediate settlement.

    How does Ericsson vs ZTE differ from Vringo vs ZTE in the timing of a possible settlement, and at what point would Vringo no longer be "dead money" in this eventual settlement?
    Dec 18, 2013. 11:13 AM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Microsoft Settles With Vringo: Is Microsoft Using Vringo In A Proxy War Against Google? [View article]
    Two sides to this strategy:

    Vringo grocery shopped Microsoft for what Google needs. Therefore enhancing settlement possibilities.

    Microsoft supplied the voltage for a new patent Frankenstein that will wreak havoc on MSFT Partners in the same fashion that Nokia followed.
    May 30, 2013. 11:58 AM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: Vringo Post En Banc [View article]
    Todays ruling is only significant in that the Court of Appeals retains "Fact Finder" role in contravention of Federal Code 52(a). The Supreme Court is due to answer this question possibly this month, or in January, with the decision of TEVA v. Sandoz. Until this question of jurisdiction is resolved we will continue to see legitimate verdicts overturned by a failed process that marginalizes the District Courts and destroys the notion of fair jurisprudence.
    Dec 16, 2014. 07:48 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • As A Frustrated Owner Of Vringo Stock, What Should I Do? [View article]
    The key to investing is discipline. VRNG has been a haven for day trading and will continue to be. With that said, one must look beyond the day to day trading and take a long term view of the company. VRNG's IP strikes at the very core of a $225 billion dollar enterprise. Very few patent plays in the United States can lay claim to this. Consider what US companies have grown with the same veracity as Google and you will find an extremely short list. One can easily see VRingo at the center of a core product that in short order will rule 90% of the Search Market in the United States. Even the FTC has taken notice with the latest Antitrust action attacking Google for manipulation of search data. SA investors need to get beyond the 5 and 10 cents movements exploited by the Market Makers and Day Traders and establish a time frame to allow this Company to complete its litigation. The investor that follows this guidance will be able to benefit far beyond the nickels and dimes being won and lost today.
    Dec 7, 2012. 12:41 PM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Opinion That Brought Down Vringo [View article]
    As I recounted in my article, Justice Mayer and Wallach drew upon an inconclusive defense expert report as the basis for their Obviousness decision. The report failed to disclose any information why the introduction of the search query would create a better mouse trap. The jury made that connection but Mayer and Wallach eliminated and scolded them for in essence the use of fundamental logic.
    Aug 18, 2014. 11:02 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Rated As Rotten: The Company Shows Why You Don't Speculate On 'Patent Trolls' [View article]
    I'll reserve my comments in my Article response. This is far from over.
    Aug 17, 2014. 01:26 PM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo -71.4% after resuming trading [View news story]
    Businessweek comment-

    Respectfully Justice Haldane's Reversal for Obviousness was fatally flawed and a bold faced attempt at weakening the viability of all US Patents. One cannot merely suggest that combining prior art, because its there, is acceptable grounds to invalidate new art. Indeed, Justice Haldane invites collapse of our entire system of Patents. Justice Mayer's use of Alice v. CLS is equally flawed and also invites deep ramifications in the test of what is patentable in software. Justice Chen whose deep experience in serving with the USPTO was the guiding light in his dissent of Haldane and Mayer. The entire Appellate owes Vringo and En Banc review or at worst SCOTUS should accept this for review. The decisions presented here have massive implications and deserve review.
    Aug 15, 2014. 02:29 PM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: After Today's U.K. Ruling, Keeping One Eye On Vringo [View article]
    Investors should notate the remarkable similarities and timeline that occurred with Ericsson v. ZTE (infringing on patents related to GSM and 3G cellular technology).

    In April of 2011 Ericsson filed lawsuits in Germany, the U.K. and Italy against ZTE for infringing on patents related to GSM and 3G cellular technology. ZTE counter-sued soon after.

    On January 20th of 2012, only 11 months after the Germany, UK and Italy lawsuits were filed ZTE settled with Ericsson for a purported $650 million settlement.

    ZTE has taken all of the same strategies it took with Ericcson with a few exceptions. It has allowed multiple detrimental court verdicts in the same countries pending Ericcson litigation was to occur, had its products impounded and seized, been found to have violated an NDA in its settlement negotiations; bad faith presumed.

    In contrast to Ericcson, Vringo's position to negotiate is superior markedly. Given the failed negotiations in New York exposed a purported $440 million one-time payment with continuing Royalties, it seems obvious Vringo will seek enhancement to this payment beyond those levels.

    Trading at under $100 million in market capitalization, given the circumstances and the similar outcome of the Ericcson litigation, every reason exists for Vringo to trade at a risk level closer to the award of $440 million.
    Nov 28, 2014. 12:54 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Catalyst Is Finally At Hand, Or Is It? [View article]

    You were better with the jailhouse law.

    To insist that the Appeal risk is not priced in --after it has been publicly announced and conveyed in countless articles and forums- is beyond ridiculous.

    5-10 years in the appellate court is yet another fantasy.
    May 28, 2013. 01:49 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Catalyst Is Finally At Hand, Or Is It? [View article]
    Respectfully I disagree.

    The market has already priced in a 3.5% Royalty rate and the appeal has already been filed including the risk for that delay, and possible loss has already been priced into the $3.10 stock price.

    What remains is 5% -7% and that will also fall under the same formula. It stands to reason that at 7% the market anticipates a final value at around 1 to 1.4 billion in award over the remaining years. Half that percentage puts the win at 500 to 700 million- at 3.5%.

    One can easily see the risk already priced in at the 255 million market cap, which is where we are now. Again that's already known and incorporated APPEAL risk and delayed award interest already supplied and factored in.

    With a 7% award the stock should be over $6 with a $500 million dollar market cap. There it would remain until the next catalyst, just as we are now.
    May 28, 2013. 01:20 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Billion-Dollar Win At Hand [View article]
    Another favorite that lends even more credibility to the "Contempt behavior" resulting in punishment. Notice the "corporate attitude" part? So Google tells the FTC that we need to limit PAE rights, at the same time they refuse to acknowledge a vaild verdict. Judge Jackson already turned down the JMOL, so we can all agree his view of the Google appeal is known. Read on and feel free to comment. Cheers.

    Mondis Technology LTD vs. Chimei Innolux Corp

    The district court then addressed whether that rate should increased because of willful infringement.
    The district court found that the ongoing infringement was willful. In reaching this conclusion, the district court disregarded the fact that the jury verdict was on appeal as that would require the district court to accept the merits of the appeal which it was not in a position to do and, in any event, in its view the appeal did not have merit.
    The district court also analyzed whether there should be an enhancement for ongoing willful infringement and found that it should for two reasons. First, the district court found that the defendant did not have a good faith belief of invalidity or non-infringement "and that the case is not close."
    Second, the district court found the defendant's corporate attitude after the jury's decision justified an increase in the royalty amount: "the Court considers InnoLux's corporate attitude, which is reflected by its CEO's statement to a Chinese newspaper after the verdict in this case, which reads in part: 'The issue of patent infringement is being taken too seriously sometimes.' . . . The Court finds that this statement by InnoLux's CEO shows InnoLux's lack of respect for this Court and the jury's verdict. It is also an affront to the United States patent system--a system of Constitutional origin. The Court, therefore, finds that this also warrants a strong enhancement because it further reflects the egregiousness of InnoLux's conduct."
    Accordingly, the district court doubled the royalty rate from .75% to 1.50%.
    Mondis Technology LTD v. Chimei Innolux Corp., Case No. 2:11-cv-378-TJW-CE (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011)
    Apr 8, 2013. 02:05 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo May Be Vetting A Buyer [View article]
    I believe what is silly is this $253 million dollar stock cap, with investors lack of insight that reflects the true value of this enterprise. Institutional investors did not give VRingo capital to negotiate the cheapest quickest offers for the IP it owns. Until investors accept that idea there will be a continued belief that the options are limited, when in fact the opposite is true.
    Apr 3, 2013. 07:43 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment