Seeking Alpha

Patent Plays'  Instablog

Patent Plays
Send Message
We are a group of sophisticated investors with experience in patent litigation, experimental economics, corporate finance and responsible corporate governance. Our member’s comments are carried online by publications such as The Wallstreet Journal, Reuters, CNN, Seeking Alpha and Motley Fool.... More
My company:
Patenplays
My blog:
Patent Plays
View Patent Plays' Instablogs on:
  • Vringo; Great IP, Poor Management

    Let me start by saying I believe in Vringo's (NASDAQ:VRNG) Intellectual Property and its ability to reach eventual monetization. However Management has not demonstrated the fiscal conservatism necessary in my opinion to maintain this enterprise for the long run.

    Vringo continues on a path of excessive leases, expenses, salaries and consulting arrangements all at the expense of the stockholder. Management has been made aware of my groups concern over this matter but the recent changes made at Vringo fail to change the overall direction of the fiscal attitudes that have dominated this company.

    While we value the IP of Vringo, there are far to many PAE's (Patent Assertion Entities) such as Worlds, Inc.(OTCQB:WDDD) that demonstrate strategies of capital conservatism in the litigious world of patent assertion.

    For this reason my group cannot continue to remain investors. As always should management make timely changes to demonstrate a wiser financial strategy we will reconsider the investment.

    Disclosure: The author is long WDDD, MSFT, DSS.

    Tags: VRNG, WDDD
    Dec 29 2:43 PM | Link | 20 Comments
  • Has Our Court Of Appeals Gone Radical?

    The Virnetx(NYSEMKT:VHC) and Vringo(NASDAQ:VRNG) appellate basis were "miles" apart in reasons for overturning the Jury decision. In the Vringo case (styled as I/P Engine v. Aol, Google et al) the 3 member appellate court ruled "de novo" and set aside the valid jury decision by insisting the I/P Engine patents were "Obvious". How the appellate came to this conclusion is now the subject of judicial controversy. The appellate courts are allowed to rule on the "substantial evidence" presented at trial, as if there had been no trial at all. The evidence presented here was the past verbal testimony of a defense expert. When posed with the question of whether two existing patents, (which were combined that created the I/P Engine patent), would have been included for seeking better search results, by someone skilled in the art, the reply was "yes because it was there". No basis or decision why the results would have been included were spoken of in the testimony. The appellate judges (2 of the 3) decided with that testimony to move the "burden of proof" from the defendant back to the plaintiff.
    Moving the "burden of proof" from a trial expert's testimony on the basis that doubt is given in favor of the defendant's expert, because he delivered ambiguous incomplete testimony delivers a mockery of jurisprudence, and eliminates a jury as an unnecessary appendage of the Judicial. Now all Defendants, in patent litigation, need only find an Expert who will testify at trial that the accused system would have been thought of "because it was there", and assure themselves a "de novo" victory at the appellate courts.

    Patent reform is the last problem we have when our Judicial acts in this manner.

    Disclosure: The author is long VRNG, SITO, WDDD.

    Tags: VHC, VRNG, MGT, SITO, WDDD
    Sep 16 6:39 PM | Link | 22 Comments
  • Businessweek Comment On The Appellate Decision

    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.

    Disclosure: The author is long VRNG.

    Tags: VRNG
    Aug 15 2:33 PM | Link | 3 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

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.