Seeking Alpha

SteveKimLaw's  Instablog

SteveKimLaw
Send Message
I am an active husband, father, lawyer (more than 24 years, how time flies), and investor. I believe in contrarian investing, i.e., going where the crowd isn't. I believe that successful investing, like successful living, requires equal parts listening and evaluating, followed by independent... More
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Trial Update For 10/15/2012 52 comments
    Oct 16, 2012 5:17 PM | about stocks: VRNG

    The Vringo (NASDAQ:VRNG) vs Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) trial is finally upon us. I will be making my best effort to provide periodic, hopefully daily, updates on the trial. I will be attempting to obtain and review the trial transcripts if and as they become available, as well as monitoring Pacer updates and witness summaries where possible.

    In order to defray as much as possible of the cost of Pacer access and the inordinate time this project and these updates taking, I will be providing these periodic trial updates in a .pdf format which will be available for digital download at a modest cost. For this reason, please do not re-distribute, publish, or post the content of these periodic updates. I have attempted to make the periodic trial updates available at a fairly nominal cost so that is easily accessible by any are interested.

    My first trial update covers jury selection, voir dire, and the anticipated trial witnesses, and is available here:

    Vringo vs. Google Trial Update (2012.10.15)

    Thanks very much, and good luck to us all!

    Aloha,

    Steve Kim

    Disclosure: I am long VRNG.

    Themes: GOOG Stocks: VRNG
Back To SteveKimLaw's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (52)
Track new comments
  • joecrocker
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Steve, thanks for doing this and obtaining and decoding all the court document for us non lawyers. It is totally reasonable for you to defray the costs for your time and expenses. I look forward to your analyses and the whole trial. I am long VRNG warrants.
    16 Oct 2012, 12:39 AM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thank you, Joe. I felt a little guilty for the new format, but I hope the information is helpful to you. Would you please provide me some feedback? Thanks, Steve.
    16 Oct 2012, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • Chung Yen Wong
    , contributor
    Comments (62) | Send Message
     
    Thanks steve, in advance.
    Docket 719 pg 11 #12
    "The reasonable royalty rate that is adequate to compensate 1/P Engine for Defendants' infringement of the '420 and '664 patents is 3.5%."
    16 Oct 2012, 12:45 AM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    Don't feel guilty, Steve. We're all adults and you have provided great insight for all following VRNG. Aloha and mahalo!
    16 Oct 2012, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    I just went to the link and Steve is asking for $1.00! Suck it up party people.
    16 Oct 2012, 01:19 AM Reply Like
  • porsche997
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    not an unfair move. PACER costs money
    16 Oct 2012, 07:18 AM Reply Like
  • nc3
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Not an unfair cost, I know it takes time to go through all the docs.
    16 Oct 2012, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • nelson0561
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Steve - just purchased the notes, a great deal for about 1/3 of one share of VRNG. Hopefully the next few weeks will be a windfall for us all!

     

    Aloha and mahalo!
    16 Oct 2012, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • craig thomas
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Hopefully it will end up being 1/30th the cost of a VRNG share when the trial ends! :)
    16 Oct 2012, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • stewarthunt
    , contributor
    Comments (60) | Send Message
     
    Wow. be mindful and sure to ask for credit should someone use these updates for the screenplay. Maybe they let Steve Kim play Ken Lang?
    16 Oct 2012, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • Phenomaly
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Does anybody have any information on the rulings for GOOG emergency motions filed Sunday? I know they were referred to Magistrate Miller, any idea when or if they have been ruled on?
    16 Oct 2012, 09:25 AM Reply Like
  • niceguy_272000
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Is there still a possibility I'd back room settlement now that the trial has started
    16 Oct 2012, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • RJKay
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Steve,
    Very cool of you to take the time & effort to translate legal to english. Great perspective & insight. Keep up the great work.
    Thanks,
    RJK
    16 Oct 2012, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • sudshead
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    steve -- tried to buy the update but it says its expired after I bought it?

     

    art hebert
    16 Oct 2012, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thanks for letting me know. I have renewed your link!
    16 Oct 2012, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • sonicthoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    vrng case: jury selected.
    16 Oct 2012, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • mitigate
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    As I have been following the updates on VRNG, I have come to realize that Steve's articles were very informative and especially in regard to the legal rulings. Having a back round in civil litigation myself, I respect his thoughts. Now that I found out he is a practicing attorney, it all makes sense as to his understanding of the legal proceedings. Keep up the good work Steve, we all appreciate your efforts.
    16 Oct 2012, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • IronmanVR4
    , contributor
    Comments (84) | Send Message
     
    Any insight to the complexion of the jury? # men # women etc...Thanks
    16 Oct 2012, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » "Daniel B. Ravicher ‏@danravicher
    Vringo $VRNG v Google $GOOG trial update: jury chosen, 7 woman, 2 men. One former Target empee had sued for work comp. Openings after lunch."
    16 Oct 2012, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • ftljr
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    From Daniel Ravicher's Twitter: Vringo $VRNG v Google $GOOG trial update: jury chosen, 7 woman, 2 men. One former Target empee had sued for work comp. Openings after lunch.
    16 Oct 2012, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • Gibidy
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Steven for your kind input during this process, I note that no major news companies are covering this case. I call CBC Canada and talked with a business editor, looking forward to an update on Vringo vs Google.
    16 Oct 2012, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • dryholt
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    have they resumed yet, seems like a long lunch
    16 Oct 2012, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • sonicthoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Steve: Quick question -
    I noticed the 3.5% royalty that Vring is arguing, however it seems they both agree that only 20% of revenue was impacted - therefore would the 3.5% apply to all revenue (ie. has nothing to do with IP) or to 20% of the revenue?

     

    Thanks again for your posts...
    16 Oct 2012, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • marpha
    , contributor
    Comments (565) | Send Message
     
    That's what it sounds like--$493m = 3.5% x 20% extra profit
    17 Oct 2012, 07:15 AM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Marpha is correct. the $493M represents 3.5% of only the increased revenues (20% increase).
    17 Oct 2012, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • Nicholas White
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Hey Steve,

     

    First off thank you for your time it is greatly appreciated! I was wondering if you are thinking to provide a brief summary of the day's events once court has adjourned. Not to put any more on you but so much disinformation gets put out during the day it would be helpful to have the reasoned insight of someone who is actually there. Thanks again!
    16 Oct 2012, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I am going to try to put out a summary of today's events. I have gathered some information from observers, but I want to make sure I have all the info before a put out a 1st day update.
    16 Oct 2012, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • mollysbuddy
    , contributor
    Comments (326) | Send Message
     
    Steve, great thing your doing but I am not a computer guru. I have been looking for it so I can help with the cost of this, but can not find it. I keep seeing instablog but it does not come up. The .pdf is greek to me. Can someone inform me were to go in Steve's blog to get it. thanks
    16 Oct 2012, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Hi, Mollysbuddy. Beneath my picture at the top of this page is a link called "Instablog." It will direct you to my SA Instablog, where there is a link to the Trial Updates. I will hopefully be posting a new one tonight, based on today's events.
    16 Oct 2012, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • JanHaagen
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Molly just scroll up to Steve's article and click on the link :
    Vringo vs. Google trial update When you click you will see a trail update date on the left and Paypal on the right. I did not pay yet but I will go for his next update. hope this helps
    16 Oct 2012, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • nikk27
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    did you hear and see enough today to to get a basic gut feeling on where things stand?
    16 Oct 2012, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • mollysbuddy
    , contributor
    Comments (326) | Send Message
     
    Wow, thanks for such a quick answer. I went there and clicked instablog and got the three write ups Trial Update For 10/15/12, Vringo Seeks Reconsideration, and My Thoughts on Vringo Insiders. But did not ask my about helping with the cost, which I would be glad to kick in. Will keep looking. Enjoy the reading....and the info....thanks again.
    16 Oct 2012, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • JanHaagen
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Molly can you see my post JanHaagen or were you referring to Steves instruction? DId he write something tonight..it is 8:24PM NY time.
    16 Oct 2012, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • jeepmater
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Steve,
    What are chance of judge ruling on injunction against Google if Vrng is favored by Jury? I am not sure based on past rulings if there is any set criteria on injunction ruling. I see that it has to be a material loss. If VRNG is not practising its patent, what are its chances?

     

    Appreciate your response and looking forward to your day 1 overview when you get chance.
    16 Oct 2012, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • Nicholas White
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Hey Steve,
    Thanks for your reply. Just a suggestion. When you post a recap of the day's events post it as a new article otherwise it will be buried in your comments section here and will be less widely read. Hope to see one before day two begins.
    17 Oct 2012, 08:09 AM Reply Like
  • Erik Giles
    , contributor
    Comments (159) | Send Message
     
    Steve thanks for your good work.

     

    Can you enlighten us on how the damages are awarded? Does the jury do this based on judges instructions? Or does the judge decide?
    23 Oct 2012, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Hi, Erik. Yes, and Yes. As I understand it, past damages are determined by the jury, and future royalties are determined by the Judge.
    Steve.
    23 Oct 2012, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • darkangel
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    Steve you saw that 30% share spike today straight to $4.36 wow--this all because Google and VrNG and the Judge supposedly had a closed chamber session. People thought they were making an offer or Google and their lawyers were getting in trouble---did you or your sources hear anything different---how many days left for this trial do you figure
    23 Oct 2012, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • jjstc4
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    Steve...If the banter is correct that the jury botched the calculations (3.5% of the damages sought rather then revs), can the judge seek out their intentions and correct or what the jury has stated will stick?
    7 Nov 2012, 08:30 AM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I don't think we can presume there is an error, although clearly it would appear that way from the calcs. If it is an error, I doubt it would be a correctable error. Should Judge Jackson be convinced that an error did actually occur (for example if Vringo's attorneys contact the jurors and obtain affidavits showing that they made a mistake), my best guess at this time is that the remedy might be to provide a partial new trial on the issue of the damages owed by Google.
    7 Nov 2012, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • Jolk
    , contributor
    Comments (216) | Send Message
     
    To me, this is most certainly an error resulting in how befuddled the jury was during the whole process.

     

    How can the Judge allow a 3.5% of (3.5% of 20%) damage award to stand in the court record? It is bewildering bad.

     

    That does not reflect the course of the trial nor the jury's intent, in my opinion. It is a terrible precedent.
    7 Nov 2012, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • Centurion 9.41
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    Steve, you are losing credibility. Earlier you praised the judge of "fairness" through judicial activism, yet now you doubt an error is correctable...
    7 Nov 2012, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » The correction issue doesn't boil down to the Judge's fairness. No matter how "fair" a Judge is, he can only do what the rules allow him to do. I am not aware of any procedural rule that allows the Judge to change or correct a verdict if a mistake was made. Certainly, it would not be easily done, even if it were technically procedurally possible. Remember, we are talking about a suggested mistake from $15M to $150M. I am pretty sure that this morning, the Dickstein lawyers are researching the very same issue we are discussing. Remember though, the first thing is that it would have to be shown that the jury wrote down something different from what they intended, i.e., that a mistake was made.
    7 Nov 2012, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • Jolk
    , contributor
    Comments (216) | Send Message
     
    How can this damage award of 0.1225% - 3.5% of (3.5% of 20%) be allowed to stay in the court record? It makes patents more or less worthless and could influence future cases.
    7 Nov 2012, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • User 4698771
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    But Steve, isn't the LAW that a patentee HAS to be awarded a RESONABLE ROYALTY if there is infringment. If the jury awarded the 3.5% and erred in their calcualtion, this would be counter to the LAW and MUST be corrected.
    7 Nov 2012, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • Jolk
    , contributor
    Comments (216) | Send Message
     
    My take was that the 35% multiple was used to compensate for laches. IOW, They awarded lump sums based on VRNGs numbers and factored in laches cutoff by using 35%. They should have used 35% for GOOG as well.

     

    They then awarded the 3.5% forward royalty.
    7 Nov 2012, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • imispgh
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    What prohibits the judge from fixing it?
    7 Nov 2012, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • ovals
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Steve - are not most states modeled after the fed. I actually found some cases where the judge adjusted damages as well. (Rules 50, 59, and 60 address these issues)

     

    FED RULE 60. RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER

     

    (a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.

     

    (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

     

    (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
    7 Nov 2012, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • ricorivera
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    How soon would that come (if at all)? It greatly effects the VRNG pps (as we are witnessing) and HAS to be considered extremely unfair to the traders at no fault of their own. Yes, we all know there is risk involved but to be penalized due to a miscalculation by the jury AND the judge (for not catching it before the verdict was read) is unsatisfactory in my opinion. This type of thing is the kind that skakes the faith of trading society in my opinion and must be addressed immediately I would think. If not, all I can say about this country at this time is......wow, really?!! I served for 15 years why?
    7 Nov 2012, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • Steve Auger
    , contributor
    Comments (140) | Send Message
     
    ricorivera - you have a lot to learn about the stock market. Nobody does anything for the sake of stock traders. Traders are essentially gamblers - some have a little skill that gives them an advantage while others don't and lose their money.

     

    Their were a lot of speculators on VRNG and it appears some of them have now "cashed in their chips" resulting in the price drop. You could average down here in the hopes the price will rise but it will still be a gamble.
    7 Nov 2012, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • CondorRob
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Hello Kim check this out could be the reason for the strange court activity and may change your mind on how hard it is to raise damages in federal court. I know a Federal Judge can not do additur but this is a Federal Judge adjusting a clerical error http://nyti.ms/PFlpeZ
    7 Nov 2012, 11:34 PM Reply Like
  • Alphi
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    it would seem that under law a clerical error must be corrected as soon as it is discovered. this may be the reason why the judge immediately went to recess and also the reason why VRNG have not publicly commented on it other than to say "we are looking into it and will take it up in court"

     

    it seems strange that the commentary from the court has gone completely silent.

     

    one can only surmise that either the court had to call time out because they had already gone too far into overtime and are now dealing with other matters.

     

    OR

     

    the court is in lock down while the parties try to resolve the apparent error in the verdict calculations.

     

    its true that the silence is testing many peoples nerves to the point that they have decided to cut their losses.

     

    however at this point in time I am inclined to take heed of the rather apt phrase "no news is good news"
    8 Nov 2012, 01:18 AM Reply Like
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.