Jeff's WaterWorks'  Instablog

Jeff's WaterWorks
Send Message
An active investor since 1998, both long and short, I make my decisions based on all the information available to me and continue to monitor that information for items that will change my investment thesis.
  • VirnetX Scores A Big Hit In The RPX IPR Petitions 56 comments
    Mar 27, 2014 10:24 AM | about stocks: VHC, RPXC, AAPL

    VirnetX Holding Corp. (NYSEMKT:VHC) yesterday filed a request for the PTAB to reconsider their decision of asking RPX (NASDAQ:RPXC) to modify their original petitions for IPR of VirnetX's patents. Case law and prior PTAB history shows that these flaws are grounds to deny the petitions, not ask the petitioner to modify their petition. There is a possibility that this request to rehear gets denied by the Board (although some would claim political motivation and not judicial efficiency as the reason), however VirnetX has given us a glimpse into their Initial Response and it is full of reasons for denial of RPX's petitions.

    In its Initial Response, VirnetX pointed out many flaws in these petitions and cited case law demonstrating that these flaws were enough to have the petitions denied. RPX's petitions have fatal flaws throughout their pages, which in and of themselves number 74 (the page limit without filing a motion for waiver is 60 and RPX didn't even file such a motion, this is also enough for dismissal of the petitions). Time after time, RPX cites an expert witness's discussion of the prior art and not the prior art itself, grounds for dismissal of the petitions. Time after time, RPX "failed to state the relevance or identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge", again all grounds for dismissal. I could go on.

    What this means in the long run is that given a dismissal tomorrow and a refiling by RPX of these petitions on Monday (although I would think it would take longer than one weekend to fix all of the fatal flaws), RPX must still worry about their privity and Real Party of Interest issues in regards to Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and they have lost a little over four months (petitions were originally filed on 11/20/13) in the race to final appeal with the Federal District court case. Discussing the Baxter case at this point is beyond the scope of this blog, but is the reason for the race to final appeal.

    After the stock price has taken a serious decline on the release of overwhelmingly good news on 3/3/14, this is a bright spot for the future of the company and the price outlook.

    Disclosure: I am long VHC.

    Stocks: VHC, RPXC, AAPL
Back To Jeff's WaterWorks' 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 (58)
Track new comments
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    Can you link to these documents you reference, please?
    27 Mar 2014, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • ClintH
    , contributor
    Comments (98) | Send Message
     
    Based on your attacks of Jeff's works today, I would say he hit a pretty soft underbelly of yours. Great work Jeff! I think Ravicher is working for some hedge funds who are excessively shorting VHC. Just my personal opinion. Any real attorney would not be short in this dog fight considering the CAFC rarely, I mean rarely overturns a decision in fact less than 13% of all appears are overturned by the CAFC. That my friends are the cold hard facts. Even colder is that Judge Leonard Davis has only 2 cases ever reversed in his lifetime. ONLY 2. Based on the high profile nature of his case, he has dotted his "i's" and crossed his "t's". He has been through in his decision from the get go. If anyone who has followed this case from start to finish, you would know that Apple has been disingenuous from the start, got their hand caught in the cookie jar more than once and have been sanctioned. As a long, I've done my DD and I'm certainly not afraid of the price at $12.80, it will come up knowing that 17M shares are short, some 41% of the float and only a slim chance of judicial help that could bail them out. SLIM CHANCE. Danny boy, you are betting against the wrong horse in this game.
    27 Mar 2014, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • ClintH
    , contributor
    Comments (98) | Send Message
     
    BTW Dan... how is the short on Herbalife working for you?
    27 Mar 2014, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » My apologies:

     

    My links are not going straight to the documents. Here are instructions on how to get there:

     

    1. Go to http://1.usa.gov/13HCojA

     

    2. Enter case number, it is: ipr2014-00171 then hit search

     

    3. click on the case number itself and a pop up window comes up.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • Stevod2u
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Jeff for your contribution of the facts regarding VHC. Much appreciated and as always, well-written and timely!
    27 Mar 2014, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Strawsine
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Good job Jeff. Kindly allow Mr. Ravicher to do his own research.
    Thank you.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    Strawsine: When I publish research, I link to all source documents. As for doing research, I made the call to short VHC after the Fed Cir argument. It's down more than 40% since then. These IPR's provide VHC no upside. The only thing they can be is downside. So, even if they get dismissed, that doesn't put VHC in any better place that it already is. Good luck with your investments.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • retiresumday
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Again, Great Job Jeff and much appreciated posting the facts versus some trivial dribble the dark side seems to want to exploit! I agree with Strawsine, Kindly allow Mr. Ravicher the opportunity to do his own research!
    27 Mar 2014, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • esizzle
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    Great catch on this. It is a very interesting development.

     

    After reading through the documents and seeing all the case law citing previous rejections of petitions and denial of petitions based on JUST ONE of these issues, it puts the PTAB in a bit of a pickle, no?

     

    Do they go against previous case law and try to blaze a new trail as to why this particular petition is any different than those cited? Or do they wipe the egg from their faces and realize that they effed up?

     

    Any idea on the timeline for a PTAB response on this latest development?
    27 Mar 2014, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » They love expediency, even to the point of sacrificing justice. IMHO.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    You guys are focused on some meaningless PTAB IPRs when your focus should be on what the Federal Circuit is going to say about damages. But, yes, let me do my own research. I was long going in to the Fed Cir oral argument and short since. I was right both. When facts change, our opinion should perhaps change. Stubbornly loving a stock no matter what is a sure fire way to lose.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I've done my homework, thank you. I guess we'll see which is better, your vaunted record or a business owner/investor.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    27 Mar 2014, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    VHC is down some 45% since the Fed Cir oral argument. I think the market is telling us what it thinks. Your bio does not say you're an attorney, so I assume you are not one, and I assume you have never argued before the Federal Circuit?
    27 Mar 2014, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • zeleration
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Ravicher, statistically the odds of a new trial are not very good and more importantly the CAFC oral argument cannot be used as a sole indicator. A lot was made of the "tone" in the room at oral but all good attorneys will tell you not to put too much faith in the "tone" at an oral.

     

    The evidence in the first trial is heavily weighed by the panel, and VHC made sure the panel heard that point loud and clear at the oral. To that point this case is NOT JUST about the Facetime Application it is about the underlying technology that allows for secure transport of data via an automated VPN client - used by MANY applications. I still have not heard why ML only focused on FT in his damages analysis posted on SA. I am giving him the benefit of doubt he did not fully understand the underlying technology; unless he differs with that opinion - then let's hear it and debate it.

     

    Look we all understand that each case is very different but in the interest of transparency to those unfamiliar with the process, I think you should at least preface your posts with the overall odds and your exact position. I am LONG. Thanks.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • ClintH
    , contributor
    Comments (98) | Send Message
     
    I think the market reacts based on what little they know. Fear is a huge motivator. In this case, had one come out on day one and said APPLE is done, the CAFC has in past only reversed a jury decision only 13% of the time, and in the case of Judge Davis, only 2 times in his 20 year history, I think it would have been a different case. Shorts killed DNDN the same way they are trying to manipulate VHC. I see you are part of their plan. DARK POOLS are filled with sharks and people like you willing to cut other people so there is blood in the water.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • zeleration
    , contributor
    Comments (72) | Send Message
     
    No Mr. Ravicher I am not an attorney, I was an engineer by trade. I am also fortunate enough to afford attorneys who advise me on legal issues that I sometimes do not fully appreciate. My personal perspective on the CAFC oral is based on that advice.

     

    Look I do not mean to insult you but my point is not about your position in the stock, it is about taking the moral high ground as an attorney. I would preface my public posts on SA with the statistical data on CAFC and more importantly as it applies to this Trial Judge and Apples overall weak defense \ damages testimony in the first trial. Without that people are not getting the full picture. Is is not fair to say that you are betting against the CAFC odds for a new trail?
    27 Mar 2014, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I politely replied to Mr. R.'s requests, no need to give him the excuse to chest beat as well, he simply doesn't care what the downturn in pps does to long term investors, he is trading for the quick bucks.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    I also publish under my own name, because I don't have anything to hide. I strongly dislike, and discourage anyone to put faith in, anonymous contributors.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Jeff Lease, never been afraid to have it out there.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    Then why did you sign up with SA as an anonymous contributor? They'll change that for you, so you can be transparent.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • esizzle
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    Get over it Ravicher. We may know your name but no one believes you are transparent.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • Stevod2u
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Really? With all of the research to do and Tweets to issue, how do you find time to nitpick a contributor as to his anonymity? Surely you have bigger fish to fry...such as PANW. I do however appreciate your trying to saving us all from ourselves. As for me, I appreciate positive contributions on SA.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    ... so says anonymous poster too scared to put his/her real name, address and other personal info. Don't be a hater just because you're holding on to a stock after what was undeniably a horrible Court of Appeals oral argument. I gave everyone plenty of notice of my opinion immediately thereafter, some 40% ago.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » No reason in particular. I sure didn't know I was going to be chastised by THE Dan Ravicher when I signed up. Mostly I've been posting on Investor Village under that name for three years, I guess.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • esizzle
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    You sound like a child, Ravicher.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    I've been called much worse by much better, anonymous poster.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • cssdraw
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    ...I will hazard a guess to your question...
    possibly so those that discuss VHC on a regular basis with him on IV will recognize him? - although many of us do know his last name, and other personal information.

     

    Yep, I concur that Jeff is not afraid to identify himself~
    27 Mar 2014, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • dmanipplay
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    VHC asking for rehearing so original order went against them, correct?
    27 Mar 2014, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • esizzle
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    Wrong.

     

    The original petition is riddled with errors and omissions...therefore they say it should be dismissed, and they cite case law where petitions have been dismissed for just one of the many issues with RPX petition.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • dmanipplay
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    And the PTAB did not dismiss it but said to refile. So VHC asked for a rehearing; hence order was against their interests and so unfavorable. why not tell the truth . By the way, do you have written rules for the members of the VHC positive thoughts only Cult?
    27 Mar 2014, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • esizzle
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    No need for the cult b.s. I am just trying to point out the facts. You asked a question wanting to know if you were correct. I answered your question by letting you know that you were incorrect.

     

    They did not ask for a dismissal of the petition until AFTER the PTAB told them they should refile because the petition was riddled with errors. It was at that point that the lawyers must have done some homework and found out - citing applicable case law - that this was not the precedent that had been set by the courts.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • dmanipplay
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    wrong again, chief. Suggest you read the redacted version of Patent Owners prelimin response. Originally filed 3/6/14 (redacted version 3/25/14). You'll note Patent owner made the request to PTAB to dismiss the petition on the various same issues. PTAB issued their order telling RPX to refile the petition, denying PTAB owners request; hence the need for VHC to ask for a rehearing. Now run back and check with the cult for your response.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I believe your local community college has classes in basic reading comprehension.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    There we go, with the typical low brow childish response from a scared pumper being called out for his weak sauce. So, Jeff, will you commit, today, to saying that if RPX refiles its requests and the PTAB accepts those, that would be negative news for VHC? Or will you then say, "Well, VHC will win the IPR?" Just FYI, the vast majority of IPRs that have been completed so far have resulted in claims being cancelled. But, that's my own research, so I'll let you do yours.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • esizzle
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    Why is someone called a "pumper" if they believe in the company and the story, they are long the stock and willing to watch events unfold? That is usually what we call an investor.

     

    Be real. You are just pumping your book, Ravicher. You are short the stock, you post negative articles and tweets about the company for ONE reason; you want to get the stock to go lower so you can profit on your trade. That is it. You are actually the pumper here.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » There you go with your high brow responses because somebody doesn't agree with you. I've still got the screen shot where you called me a moron on twitter, care to see that reposted?

     

    RPX refiling their requests being bad news and VHC ultimately winning the IPR are not mutually exclusive events. I think only a simpleton or a lackey would truly believe that RPX is filing these IPRs as a way of "helping mankind to live in a troll free world", they are a public company and their purpose is to make money, the RPIs will show up and Apple already has. If you have any connections in RPX why don't you teach them how to scrub metadata off of the records being filed as public record.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    I have no position in VHC at the moment, so am not talking my book. A "pumper" is someone who calls a company having to "file[] a request for the PTAB to reconsider their decision" a "big hit" for the company. It's precisely the opposite.

     

    Believe me, nothing would make me happier than for VHC to be worth gazillions of dollars. I was long not too long ago. But, then the facts changed (i.e. the Court of Appeals argument suggested, to me, that the $360M verdict will not stand), and so I changed my position, especially after the company issued a very suspiciously timed 8-K announcing just one part of a decision from the district court without providing all the details of that decision or providing a copy of it or even an explanation why they couldn't provide a copy of it or why they waited until that day and that time to issue the 8K.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I see no reason that the issuance of the 8-K should be a red flag. I'd appreciate more detail on your thoughts.

     

    My thoughts: they were made aware of the document on the 25th, they easily could have been expecting the court to file that document on the 3rd, however Tyler Texas was iced in that day and nobody went into the Fed. Dist. offices. I believe most of the top officers of the company were attending the CAFC hearing and may not even have been aware that Tyler was shut down. They then, while being all the way across country, had to scramble for a press release as this was the final day, by SEC regs, that the company could sit on news material to the corporation. Being involved in as many touchy legal battles as they are currently ensnarled in, better to say too little than too much (I know that drives shareholders crazy, but it is the God honest best policy).
    27 Mar 2014, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • manix
    , contributor
    Comments (209) | Send Message
     
    "But, then the facts changed (i.e. the Court of Appeals argument suggested, to me, that the $360M verdict will not stand), and so I changed my position..."

     

    Interpreting a hearing at the Court of Appeals as equivalent to "facts changing" is a stretch, and actually a very weak basis upon which to base your short. It would help us bystanders (those who read, but don't throw mud) if you would clarify how successful you have been at forecasting the outcome of a hearing simply based on what you heard in court?
    Anything less than 80% I would say is no basis for taking a position. Can you point us to other posts of yours (anywhere they are accessible) where you state that your interpretation of a hearing was correct and therefore sufficient grounds for a major investment?

     

    Further, your repeated claims that "the stock is down, ergo I'm right" is easily refutable:

     

    cum hoc ergo propter hoc, counselor.
    27 Mar 2014, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • dmanipplay
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    By the way, do you knuckleheads realize that Dan Ravicher was at the center of the successful Supreme Court ruling versus Myriad Genetics last summer. MYGN....I realize he speaks his mind and tells the truth, but maybe you cultists should rethink whose opinion you disregard because it upsets your little applecart.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » So you are a Ravicher fanboy, I was wondering where you were coming from, at least it isn't Farmwald. I'm well aware of DR's history, which he kindly throws in your face when you disagree with him, that doesn't make him correct on this issue, only on those he has already been correct about previously. I did my homework, feel free to stay fanboy.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel B. Ravicher
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    Again, when you can't counter someone's substantive arguments, you start name calling. I hate it when the blind lead the blind off cliffs.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » My substantive arguments are right there in the two SA articles that I wrote, oddly enough you have addressed neither of them and your original purpose here was to correct my documentation efforts in a blog post of all things. Please, pardon me for not properly citing my materials, as I seem to be the only one on the internet not doing so.

     

    My apologize also for calling somebody your fanboy after he calls others knuckleheads, I just don't know why my debating and mock jury instructors didn't ding me for such behavior previously, so gauche.
    27 Mar 2014, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • Jeff's WaterWorks
    , contributor
    Comments (89) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » So, your preference is for the profiteering manipulators to shove the blind off the cliffs?
    27 Mar 2014, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • dmanipplay
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    it's being a fanboy to recognize someone's professional achievements? Re Farmwald, you are not really arguing that he doesn't have any standing or credibility regarding IP, are you? Evidence of cult thinking, plain and simple.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • Scaramouched
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    "Stubbornly loving a stock no matter what is a sure fire way to lose." Really? No one "loves" a stock. They may "invest" in the story or idea, but to say one loves a stock is nonsense. They may review the valuation or P/E and potential to conclude it's a solid investment, but "love" a stock, hogwash. I've heard that so many times over the years and still think what an unfounded statement.

     

    Individuals who use this type of statement in investing have minimal ideas as to what an "investor" means. I have invested for over 40 years, and yes I have sold out of some positions over the years when the thesis changed or some unforeseen negative appeared or the management group failed to execute. I am a recent investor in VHC after Mr. Farmwald's piece was printed. I challenged him, yes it was personal, with no justification whatsoever. I did my own research on the poster. He did not pass the sniff test unfortunately which made my decision a little more confirmed. As for Mr Ravicher, I am not sure if he is an investor or a trader. Big difference. But to use blanket statements such as his is nothing short of.......well, bologna!! If you have done your thorough investigation, heard the evidence, etc, etc, you make your decision. I've have had several legal professional (lawyer) friends listen to the audio of the CAFC, and yes 2 have been there, done that. Their response, "you can't glean anything from the audio." In fact, 2 again say often the CAFC appears to have a decision before the oral hearings and seek to challenge and verify what they suspect will be their ultimate decision. None of them had any true personal knowledge of Judge Davis. If Mr. Ravicher is an attorney how does he come to a totally differing opinion? Can't say, however, I do know these gentlemen very well and trust their evaluation. I do not short stocks. Never have, never will. I don't blame those who do, but it is out of my comfort zone and my beliefs. I have held stocks for as long as 9 years (longest I can remember to date, and yes it made it worth while) to prove my thesis. I have also had spectacular winners in weeks. Like most "investors" I hate thinking about the missteps!!! They have happened. But to issue a blanket statement about "falling in love with a stock" is absurd thinking and those who suggest it, well, they're probably not investors but traders. No offense to the poster, but I've heard that so many times and it still is mind-numbing. He's short, I'm long. Period. We will see who, in the long run is correct. I also believe it distasteful to comment on how "right" I am. Nonsense. Let me know when you sell or cover in your case. I haven't sold and don't plan on doing so til my thesis is correct or something changes. Otherwise I don't feel the need to publish my results on a message board. I'm not in love with VHC, but my reasons were/are compelling to invest in this spectacular opportunity!! I am down slightly. Does it bother me? No. It has happened countless times before, as it has for all. Best.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • dmanipplay
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    Scara, since you are basing your confidence on your several attorney friends (patent?) you might consider that Dan Ravicher has been named twice to the "most 50 influential people in IP' (he actually appears on the list with Randall Rader, the Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals who your friends heard grilling VHC's attorney on the tape....just saying.....also you may want to work on the amount of pomposity that gleans through your essay.

     

    http://bit.ly/NZAmZP
    27 Mar 2014, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • ClintH
    , contributor
    Comments (98) | Send Message
     
    "Grilling VHC" Not the least.
    27 Mar 2014, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • #137119
    , contributor
    Comments (49) | Send Message
     
    "you might consider that Dan Ravicher has been named twice to the "most 50 influential people in IP' "

     

    So was Angelina Jolie and Tim Tebow. Wonder if they will weigh in on the VHC CAFC oral hearing?
    27 Mar 2014, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • Chinabob
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    "The lady (Gentleman) doth protest too much, methinks"

     

    From Hamlet but I believe it applies to Daniel B Ravicher.

     

    He must be running a little scared to post so many replies.

     

    I do use a loose interpretation of the term "Gentleman".
    27 Mar 2014, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • moishe62
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    Is it just me who sees "dmanipplay" as "The Manipulator Play"?
    27 Mar 2014, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • LookoutJoe
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    Why, if no position, is DR, and his lackey doo-doo boy, posting here, especially if he 's a so-self-important ip expert. Anyone with a grade school education can figure it out. So transparent.
    27 Mar 2014, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • User 8331091
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    Facts haven't changed, only perception.

     

    Dan Ravicher is correct about significance of PTAB events. As for facts changing, the oral hearing provided a perspective but no real indication facts changed. If Dan is able to read the tea leaves and accurately predict CAFC disposition based on orals, he is a genius.

     

    If CAFC affirms it's what most pundits already believe: Orals rarely provide any insight into the actual decision and often times the panel has made its mind up before orals.
    27 Mar 2014, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • PERPLEXEDER
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    And I must say, a big time 'famous' lawyer like DR whining about Jeff being an anonymous voice tells me his argument is wearing pretty thin and the only recourse is to throw a diversion. And then crying about name calling? Are we back on the playground? Too bad he can't stick to the topic at hand, being such a famous lawyer and all. I think if he got another couple cheerleaders like Dmani, we would respect his 'opinion' more.
    27 Mar 2014, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • dmanipplay
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    Stock price is down 50% since the oral hearing; volume suggests selling by longs in addition to shorts. case closed.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • gloriason
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    Once again, thanks Jeff, for this accurate call on the RPX faux IPR's, justice won this one. Now on to the CAFC ruling . . .
    5 Jun 2014, 04:12 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »
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.