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
  • Will VirnetX Be Granted An Injunction Against Apple? (Ravicher Report) 4 comments
    Jan 22, 2013 9:21 AM | about stocks: VHC, AAPL

    As discussed in my August 2012 article, VirnetX (NYSEMKT:VHC) has a number of patent infringement actions currently pending against Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and others. In early November, VirnetX received an extremely favorable jury verdict in one of its suits against Apple. The jury found that 16 different claims from 4 different VirnetX patents were infringed by Apple, that Apple had failed to prove any of those 16 claims were invalid, and that VirnetX had suffered $368M in damages from the infringement.

    After the jury verdict, the parties filed various post-trial motions. Unquestionably the most important post-trial motion in my opinion is the one filed by VirnetX for a permanent injunction against Apple. If granted, the injunction would prohibit Apple from continuing to sell any product that infringes any of the 16 claims of VirnetX's four patents. Importantly, the injunction would not be limited to just the specific Apple products accused in the lawsuit and found by the jury to infringe, which include the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch, iPad, and iPad 2, but would also prohibit Apple from selling any other product, current or future, including its newest iOS products like the iPhone 5, that also infringe. Obviously, the issuance of such an injunction could provide VirnetX substantial bargaining leverage to negotiate a very favorable license with Apple.

    In this Ravicher Report, I provide my opinion regarding whether I believe the judge will grant VirnetX's motion for a permanent injunction against Apple. I may submit the content of this Ravicher Report, in whole or in part, to the Seeking Alpha editors for publication. Seeking Alpha publishing policies prevent me from submitting content that I had previously made available for free. Thus, if you do not wish to pay for this Ravicher Report, I respect and understand that. If I decide to submit some or all of its content to Seeking Alpha as an article and the Seeking Alpha editors review and approve my article, they will publish it then for free.

    Disclosure: I am long VHC.

    Additional disclosure: I wrote this instablog myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it, although I am receiving compensation through sales of the referenced Ravicher Report. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. While I am long VHC as of the publication of this instablog and the referenced Ravicher Report, VHC is, in my opinion, highly volatile, as is the litigation process in which it is involved, and therefore I may change my position in VHC at any moment for any reason or no reason at all. When asked, I have given my opinions about VHC to private parties, sometimes in exchange for a fee, and may continue to do so. I recently contacted representatives of VHC to request copies of various documents filed with the court. None were provided.

    Stocks: VHC, AAPL
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 (4)
Track new comments
  • singletrackrider
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
    why would anyone buy this when the Moreno's research is superior and free?
    22 Jan 2013, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Didn't know Moreno was a patent attorney and had opined specifically on whether VirnetX will be granted an injunction. Have a link you can share where he does? Would love to see it, and am sure others would appreciate it, too.
    22 Jan 2013, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • jstevenbaker
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message


    I am hoping you can you clarify a couple of point. First, is it your opinion that VirnetX has motioned for an injunction of the products you listed, e.g. iPhones, iPads, Macs, etc.?


    I attended the post-trial hearing but am blind (as are others) to the actual sealed motions. In the hearing, VirnetX seemed that the injunction request is primarily limited to FaceTime (the app, not the products on which it operates) and the supportive technology used in the non-relay server environment.


    Did you use/reference the transcripts from the Dec 20 hearing in your written report.


    Thanks. I have enjoyed reading your commentary and opinions.
    22 Jan 2013, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • 1955chevy
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
    permanent injunction against Apple to take vhc tec of their products not to stop sales just to be clear.
    22 Jan 2013, 02:41 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.