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
  • Patent Office Rejects Three Of Four Google Arguments Against Vringo '664 Patent 18 comments
    Jan 17, 2013 6:52 PM | about stocks: FH, GOOG

    As an update to my previous discussion of Google's (NASDAQ:GOOG) requests to reexamine the two Vringo (VRNG) patents it was found by a jury to infringe, the PTO today (Jan 17, 2013) issued an order granting Google's reexamination request for the '664 patent, but only in light of one of the four pieces of proposed prior art.

    Specifically, the PTO examiner said, "Based on a priority date of Apr. 4, 1996, the Bowman, Culliss, and Lashkari references are determined to be intervening references, and as such do not qualify as prior art." Further, "Requestor proposed rejections based on Bowman, Culliss and Lashkari will not be Ordered and will not be further addressed."

    The Examiner continued to find that the fourth of Google's cited references, Rose, does qualify as prior art and raises a substantial question of patentability. While this isn't the best of all possible outcomes for Vringo, as it would have been optimal for no reexamination whatsoever be granted, it's definitely very good news for them that three of Google's cited references won't even be considered by the Patent Office in reviewing the '664 patent.

    Disclosure: I am long VRNG.

    Additional disclosure: Please see all my previous articles and instablogs on VRNG for my disclosure. VRNG is highly volatile and while I am long as of the writing of this instablog, I may change my position at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

    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 (18)
Track new comments
  • Noreika
    , contributor
    Comments (497) | Send Message
    Thanks for the article Dan.


    Although I make fun, and call you The Ravager and want you to fight in a steel cage...it's all in fun. I always read as much on VRNG as I can from both sides of the argument.
    17 Jan 2013, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • nhenny2012
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
    Doesn't the PTO grant a large percentage of re-examination requests? If so, the fact that they only granted one re-examination should be very good news. Of the ones re-examined the number that is actually changed/modified I believe is 11%.
    17 Jan 2013, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • CadillacKid
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
    Hi Dan, any word on the '420 patent and the 11 claims GOOG made (followed by VRNGs response late Nov)? are we expecting an imminent conclusion from the USPTO with regards to that?
    17 Jan 2013, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » There hasn't been any action on the '420 reexam since December.
    17 Jan 2013, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • trexia
    , contributor
    Comments (159) | Send Message
    Was A degree in technology is one requirement to become a Patent Lawyer ? Don Stout works at the USPTO before and he knows the Patent game !!!


    Trust him !!!
    17 Jan 2013, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • EXPstocktrader
    , contributor
    Comments (388) | Send Message
    Our money in on Don Stout and the whole Vringo team folks. Even team Israel. A patent re-exam takes a long time. By then, JJ will smoke the shorts and the Nokia patent values will start to take us much higher than $3.00. Peace, EXP
    17 Jan 2013, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • alvarovc
    , contributor
    Comments (132) | Send Message
    "A patent re-exam takes a long time" how long approximately? BTW don't think that JJ will rule out sooner now that he knows that patents are valid and GOOG is wilfully infringing? Perhaps this was what he was waiting for!
    18 Jan 2013, 12:49 AM Reply Like
  • rickeespal
    , contributor
    Comments (283) | Send Message
    I try to keep up with everything going on with this case but I hear different things and decided to just let it play out. So one of the things I am not sure on. Goog already lost what does a patent reexam do? If they are nullified does that nullify future royalties? Is that what this is? But as exprt said this case will be done before the uspto is done. So what is the point? Is goog hoping this answer is given before appeal time is up?
    17 Jan 2013, 11:56 PM Reply Like
  • boxtavious
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
    Previously you had stated that you think Vringo should be valued at approximately $3.15 to $3.25 and that you would be buying under $3.00. Was this catalyst enough to bring your low end buying range up slightly into your value range or have other documents recently released prompted this?
    18 Jan 2013, 12:04 AM Reply Like
  • Patent Plays
    , contributor
    Comments (980) | Send Message
    Excellent news! The Culliss and Bowman exhibits were the strongest elements of the Prior Art defense. I briefly looked at the USPTO ruling and will have to devote more time to Rose. However on first glance I do not believe Rose is strong enough to invalidate the '664 Patent. Regardless '461 stands and I did not see Quinn filing a challenge to that one. I firmly believe Google lost a significant advantage with the USPTO today.
    18 Jan 2013, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • Patent Plays
    , contributor
    Comments (980) | Send Message
    Regardless to all the issues Rose could create within the abstract the USC 102(b) test specifically the demonstrated use test...ie: Vringo demonstrating the Lycos "experimental usage" history of the Patent upon response would force the USPTO to hold for Vringo.
    18 Jan 2013, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • netprf
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
    princetonatty44 - FYI ...
    from the ymb ...


    Ravicher left out one important detail in his instablog.
    capt_uss_enterprise by capt_uss_enterprise .
    Jan 18, 2013 8:41 AM . Permalink


    He failed to post the last sentence in the response from the USPTO


    "Rose does not qualify as prior art under U.S.C 102(e)"


    U.S.C. 102(e) states that:


    (e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.




    Revised 35 U.S.C. 102(e), as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) (Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501 (1999)), and as further amended by the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002)), applies in the examination of all applications, whenever filed, and the reexamination of, or other proceedings to contest, all patents. Thus, the filing date of the application being examined is no longer relevant in determining what version of 35 U.S.C. 102(e) to apply in determining the patentability of that application, or the patent resulting from that application.


    U.S.C. 102(b) (where the USPTO suggests that Rose qualifies as prior art) states that:


    (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.


    Since this is an issue of novelty, this hurdle will be easy for Lang to clear by either (a) amending the claims in his patent, arguing successfully that his claims are distinguishable from Rose, or showing evidence of "experimental use" - one word LYCOS


    Why is it that a patent attorney/blogger would leave out that very significant detail?
    Sentiment: Strong Buy


    3 Feb 2013, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • Adam Gill
    , contributor
    Comments (136) | Send Message
    Only 1 claim needs to stand unchanged for the Vringo win to hold. Infringement was found on 14.


    Contrary to your December article wherein you predicted that the PTO would cancel all Vringo's asserted claims, or at least require them to change them all, the reexam has always appeared to be and remains a hail mary and delay tactic by Google, with little chance of ultimate success.
    18 Jan 2013, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • SteveKimLaw
    , contributor
    Comments (458) | Send Message
    Thank you for reporting facts, which are appreciated.
    18 Jan 2013, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • Danburydude
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
    Folks, you need to look out below !! The short position increased threefold on Friday !! Look for some definite hijinks on Tuesday. Just look at the manipulation in AMRN the last two days if want to see what the shorts are going to do to make money. This is a setup for the other shoe to drop. By the way, I am long, and staying long, in VRNG.
    19 Jan 2013, 12:04 AM Reply Like
  • jlf75
    , contributor
    Comments (161) | Send Message
    With imminent JJ ruling I can't for the life of me imagine anyone shorting VRNG. It's just too dangerous. There are so many other more easily shorted and obvious short candidate stocks available, shorting VRNG is playing with fire. Who would do it and why? I think some "short players" have confused VRNG with VRSN, which is a good short candidate. Check it out: http://bit.ly/U8zgLA
    19 Jan 2013, 06:00 AM Reply Like
  • stockhawk
    , contributor
    Comments (272) | Send Message
    Thanks for telling it like it is. The Friday short position taken on heavy volume is puzzling to me due to the timing. Does someone on the street know something we don't or maybe just playing the contrarian?
    19 Jan 2013, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • onetimershot
    , contributor
    Comments (115) | Send Message
    As much as it pains me to say what I'm about to say because I think DR manipulated shareholders his previous two articles. I have to say thank you for reporting this. VRNG has been dead quiet and well I think it's a shame that we have to get updates or interpretations from someone on seeking alpha and not the company. Infact, if nobody here thinks that VRNG has forgotten the shareholders during dead and slow bleeds its nice to get a factual article from someone, even though that someone at times tries to purposely come across as an ahole. So, I post when I think think Dan does so,etching wrong or unethical, so i owe it to say thank you for this article and for posting the facts.
    Thank you Dan.
    19 Jan 2013, 11:36 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


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.