Daniel B. Ravicher's  Instablog

Daniel B. Ravicher
Send Message
Daniel B. Ravicher is a registered patent attorney who frequently consults with investment banks, hedge funds, and individual investors on legal issues that may materially affect the value of publicly traded companies. In addition to private consulting, Mr. Ravicher also regularly publishes... More
My company:
Daniel B. Ravicher, Esq.
My blog:
@danravicher on Twitter
  • Previewing The Vringo V. Google Patent Trial 25 comments
    Oct 11, 2012 10:06 PM | about stocks: FH, GOOG

    The currently pending Vringo (VRNG) versus Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) patent infringement lawsuit has received a lot of attention. Even famed Dallas Mavericks owner and Shark Tank entrepreneur Mark Cuban has reportedly taken a large ownership position in the small patent plaintiff. The case appears to be highly material to Vringo's stock, as it jumped 70% within 24 hours after a favorable decision in the case issued on October 3. While the judge presiding over the case has ordered the parties to discuss settlement, if settlement is not reached, the case will go to trial. In this Ravicher Report I discuss my perspective on the case, including a discussion of the judge's experience with patents disputes, the judge's decisions interpreting Vringo's patents and whether they are susceptible to being reversed on appeal, the arguments that will likely be raised by the parties during the trial, and, finally, my thoughts on expected outcomes.

    Ravicher Report October 11, 2012 - Previewing The Vringo v. Google Patent Trial

    WARNING: Ravicher Reports are publications of Ravicher LLC and contain the author's opinions on certain legal issues involving public companies. They are not investment advice or legal advice. They are based on information gathered from sources believed to be reliable but are not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. The information in Ravicher Reports is subject to change without notice, and neither the author nor Ravicher LLC assume any responsibility to update the information contained therein. The author and other Ravicher LLC officers, employees, or members of their families might, from time to time, have a position in the securities mentioned and may purchase or sell these securities in the future. Although initially offered for a fee, they may later be made available for free via the author's Seeking Alpha page or other means.

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

    Stocks: FH, GOOG
Back To Daniel B. Ravicher'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 (25)
Track new comments
  • jeppsensalt
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for your submission. Unfortunately I will be unable to afford the $300 report, although as an attorney I would be interested in your review. I suppose, for now, I will settle for the sometimes helpful discussion on SA. How long have you been following Vringo's suit?
    11 Oct 2012, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Happy to send you a free copy if you're an individual investor and not a fund or money manager. Just send me an email (my email address is on my main SA author page). I want to empower individuals as much as I can, and also expect to release the report for free to the public early next week. I've been following this case since the original "Google going to zero?" article earlier this year.
    11 Oct 2012, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I've actually changed it to "set your own price" as low as $1 (my PDF distributor requires at least $1). Just click the link again and let me know if it doesn't work for you. All best, --Dan
    11 Oct 2012, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • vitosoranno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1634) | Send Message
     
    Hi Daniel,

     

    I am under the impression that Vringo did not ask for enhanced or treble damages in their complaint, but merely asks for compensatory royalties for past and future infringement.

     

    If this is accurate, how can Vringo attain treble damages as mentioned in your report?
    14 Oct 2012, 04:46 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » You are under the wrong impression. The judge on Friday held (http://bit.ly/T3QlHR) that Vringo did not "adequately plead willful infringement." Notice he said "adequately" and not that they "did not ask" at all, as you state. He thus granted Google's motion to prevent Vringo from introducing evidence of willful infringement. This development occurred after I wrote and published my report on Thursday. Thus, at the time I wrote my report, willfulness was still possible. With this ruling, it seems Vringo will not be able to seek a finding of willfulness from the jury which would allow them to ask the judge to enhance any damages awarded by the jury up to a trebling.
    15 Oct 2012, 12:46 AM Reply Like
  • alexah101
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    thank you for posting, this is a very interesting case beyond the potential payout
    12 Oct 2012, 01:36 AM Reply Like
  • alexah101
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    thank you for posting this, i know i could always wait til the result but I'm exciting to read, this is a very interesting case, even beyond the potential payout
    12 Oct 2012, 01:38 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » You're welcome. Yes, it's a very interesting case.
    12 Oct 2012, 06:21 AM Reply Like
  • tallanasty90
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    hi daniel, i as well am an individual investor (college student). wondering if there is any way i can receive it as well.
    12 Oct 2012, 01:52 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » It's available from the links above at any price you like, minimum $1.
    12 Oct 2012, 06:20 AM Reply Like
  • Prescient Investment Analysis
    , contributor
    Comments (261) | Send Message
     
    Wow, that report is certainly helpful to someone like me who is not a lawyer and is trying to follow the case. Some reactions and comments:

     

    Personally, I was afraid to use Google's prior art finder.

     

    The strategy/tactic of "Both attorneys trying to paint their clients as the good guy..." has caught my attention, because it appears the plaintiffs have precluded the defense from 'Name calling.'

     

    I note that the author is a professor of patent law. Perhaps you would be willing to comment on the issue of theft of US intellectual property? It would be regrettable to be narrow-minded; however, the news media tends to point a finger at China as a sort of serial infringer. Protection of our sovereign assets must be an ongoing issue in IP law--and perhaps does not act as a cuirass for ZTE against Vringo's selection of it as the target of another licensing action?

     

    Please excuse me if terms are misused or misapplied here; though this is not, strictly speaking, a pro se effort...
    12 Oct 2012, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » The words "theft" and "intellectual property" are debatable. In this case, for example, Google argues both that Vringo has no valid IP and also that they aren't using it regardless. Accusations are cheap and easy. Proving guilt in court requires evidence sufficient to convince a jury.
    14 Oct 2012, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • CAPharmd
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    Hello Daniel,
    I read the whole report and many thanks for writing a non-bias article.
    Do you think google might settle before trial at this point.
    thanks
    13 Oct 2012, 04:28 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » At this point, I'd be surprised, although not shocked, if the case settles before trial. I don't know enough about what's going on behind the scenes to be able to give more of an accurate prediction than that. I will say, though, that I can't think of a time when Google has ever settled on the courthouse steps. But, if the price was right, anything's possible.
    14 Oct 2012, 10:43 PM Reply Like
  • thomasmowry
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    Daniel, thanks for a comprehensive well organized overview of the case and potential proceedings. The real value here to those of us following the case and the informed/uninformed opinions posted on SA and other sites is your prospective connection of the claims, judicial experience with similar case, witnesses, known factual developments, and potential rulings on the jury.

     

    I wonder how much probability you would place on this trial going down as you 'simulate?' Personally, i think GOOG will settle for one primary reason: this is a credible challenge to their core value proposition. They have so much more at risk- from financial damages to market reputation; Lang only has immense upside since he has found a company, legal team and plenty of cash to prosecute the theft of his invention. I'm convinced he will not stop until the jury returns a verdict. GOOG must have reached that conclusion by now as well.
    13 Oct 2012, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I can see your points about settlement, and I have no way of knowing what the parties may or may not be discussing, but one problem with Google settling this case is that it encourages many other patent holders to come after them as well.
    14 Oct 2012, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • CAPharmd
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    Daniel, I think after the judge denied treble charges against goog, there is no way settlement will occur now and the most likely scenario at this point it that goog is going to trial.
    13 Oct 2012, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • vitosoranno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1634) | Send Message
     
    Daniel,

     

    I am under the impression that Vringo did not ask for enhanced or treble damages in their complaint, but merely asks for compensatory royalties for past and future infringement.

     

    If this is accurate, how can Vringo attain treble damages as mentioned in your report?
    14 Oct 2012, 04:46 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » This is a dupe, see my comment above to the first one.
    15 Oct 2012, 01:12 AM Reply Like
  • darkangel
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    Google will get pounded bad if they lose--They (VRNG) want not the 1% royalty rate they want 3.5%--That is an unreal number--I feel they want to feel out the jury, look at facial expressions, and see how this may play out. I still see an outside chance we see a big bidder show up--MicroSoft rumors are flying again, about a 11-16 dollar buyout--This will shock Google and allow Microsoft to own all those VRNG patents and Nokia ones--The Nokia patents will help Microsofts, phone and tele business, hugely--They would be silly not to make an offer--A Google loss means VRNG will go after them next--So why not get VRNG while they are cheap.Microsoft team and lawyers should just be smart and buy them out now, that is a great addition to their portfolio and adds to Microsofts search engine capabilities and others will have to pay royalties to them now... I say after Google settlement we will hit 8-11 bucks, fall back to 7 and then climb slowly and painfully back up on each new lawsuit news---Google will appeal or just buy out VRNG from there, they have nothing to lose right now and will not make an offer--If they do a buy out now or offer now it doesnt matter to them and they are playing it smart, they want to see if they can win, --If they lose --they will then lick their wounds and settle then, or do a buyout--but for now it makes no sense, they will wait it out--6-10 days for this case to settle--Google risks one thing though--A Buyout from another firm--Risky of them
    16 Oct 2012, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • steviedee
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Assuming Vringo wins this case ... the big "G" will likely appeal ... and no immediate payout $$$ ??? What does this do to the PPS and when does this settlement money go to the shareholders?
    19 Oct 2012, 02:05 AM Reply Like
  • steviedee
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Assuming Vringo is triumphant in this trial lawsuit, does it not make sense that the big "G" will appeal ? If so, what immediate effect does that have on the PP$ ? Appeal means no immediate payout ? Also, how much of the supposed settlement will go to the shareholders reflecting the PP$ ? I was to understand that Vringo was to retain 80% of any settlements...
    19 Oct 2012, 02:08 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Absent settlement, either side that loses will most definitely appeal, as the cost of appeal is trivial compared to the potential benefit.
    19 Oct 2012, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • steviedee
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Hi Dan, I hope you are well ! Thanks for your efforts and highly regarded insight. I do understand that the cost to appeal is nominal in comparison to any trial expense... I was curious though about my concerns stated in prior correspondence. As you are aware, there is so much hype and a great deal of non~sense thrown around with these type of lawsuits, it really is a breath of fresh air to find someone that is legit and has validity to solidify their integrity.
    19 Oct 2012, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • asia24
    , contributor
    Comments (140) | Send Message
     
    Hello Dan

     

    I enjoyed viewing your Video presentation on The Organic and Monsanto Seed issue, very informative.
    Although we can see either side appeal, do you believe that a settlement is in the works between the companies or will they let it drag out to a jury verdict? Also Judging by how Judge Jackson has been with Quinn Emanuel Lawyers, do you think he will award Vringo if they win a substantial forward Royalty based on the fact that Google didn't settle before trial?
    22 Oct 2012, 04:04 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


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.