Seeking Alpha

Vringo ticks higher after Google workaround documents don't appear

  • Vringo (VRNG +1.8%) is up after a deadline for Google to present evidence backing up its claim to have developed a workaround that allows its AdWords search ad platform to avoid infringing Vringo's IP comes and goes without legal documents being published on the PACER site. A Vringo document presenting evidence to counter Google's claim hasn't appeared either.
  • The court handling Vringo's suit against Google gave the parties until Aug. 25 to present evidence related to their workaround arguments. The next deadline is Sep. 25, the point in time where Google's expert witness reports are due.
  • Vringo was up over 6% in premarket trading on relatively heavy volume. A 50K-share block trade cleared the wires.
  • Update: SA commenters note the documents wouldn't be filed on PACER. Vringo is now close to breakeven on a down day for tech.
Comments (23)
  • captart
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Vringo called Googles Bluff and Google has noting to show. It's going to cost Google a HUGE loss when JJ finally rules...
    27 Aug 2013, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (429) | Send Message
     
    No workaround?! I'm shocked!
    27 Aug 2013, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • ekin09
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    Sarcasm?
    30 Aug 2013, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • Revanche
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    Breaking news: no documents publicly available on PACER; stock jumps on this new non-development.

     

    This just in: MM realizes small-time longs will see this as 'news', buys 50k block pre-market; intends to sell same afternoon as small-time longs think "something is happening with VRNG".

     

    Seriously, fellow longs...think about *your* long-term strategy, stick to it and don't react. There is *no* indication Google didn't file by the deadline; the only known thing is that PACER didn't automatically show any documents (from either side) at the exact instant the deadline passed. That's the *only* fact at this moment in time. Anyone who says Google didn't file is *assuming* based on the PACER not showing the documents. The assumption might be right, it might be wrong. We just don't know either way and if you're a long, you shouldn't be 'trading', you should be 'investing', which is based on facts, not assumptions.
    27 Aug 2013, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • Zirver
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    How is this a non-development? They are entitled to Running Royalities until 2016, unless there was a workaround. Hardly a non-devolpment LOL.
    27 Aug 2013, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Revanche
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    Please define the 'this' in your statement, Zirver. I'm clearly responding to this specific article/page (referring to this morning's spike).

     

    In your mind, what is the 'development' this page is referring to?
    27 Aug 2013, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • Adam Gill
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    This is wrong.

     

    The Court ordered that documents be "produced" by August 25. Document productions are NOT filed, and would not show up on PACER. Neither will the expert reports, by the way.

     

    And, the next deadline in the VRNG docket is today, when GOOG will be filing its response to VRNG's calculation of supplemental damages.
    27 Aug 2013, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • Markman Advisors
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    Adam Gill is correct. Documents will not show up on Pacer and will be produced directly to Vringo. They will be controlled by the Protective Order. Here is the actual order:
    "August 25, 2013 - The parties must produce any documents relevant for determining whether New AdWords is no more than a colorable variation of the adjudicated product. Any additional discovery is limited to three (3) depositions per side, including expert witnesses."
    Deposition notices will not appear on Pacer either.
    27 Aug 2013, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • Patent Plays
    , contributor
    Comments (847) | Send Message
     
    Correct.

     

    However if Google failed to file the requested documents we would most certainly see a Pacer update disclosing Google's failure to perform according to the order and a subsequent Vringo motion to the Court.
    27 Aug 2013, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • J.J. Cohen
    , contributor
    Comments (302) | Send Message
     
    PP, So because we don't see this (yet) - its could be safe to assume that Goog has filed requested documents to Vringo?
    27 Aug 2013, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • J.J. Cohen
    , contributor
    Comments (302) | Send Message
     
    @PP Vrng Latest motion for court filed 8/29/13 http://bit.ly/15Ojv28
    2 Sep 2013, 02:15 AM Reply Like
  • Patent Plays
    , contributor
    Comments (847) | Send Message
     
    @jjcrunch

     

    I believe time (and the recent Pacer) corroborated my comments and answered your question to-some extent.
    2 Sep 2013, 08:25 AM Reply Like
  • J.J. Cohen
    , contributor
    Comments (302) | Send Message
     
    @pp - yes indeed...so in summation, what Goog "produced" was not satisfactory to VRNG nor did it address the court's order, so Vrng filed the latest motion as I gave the link above...it appears they not only want the judge to force GOOG to act more quickly with any documentation they are going to produce, if any...but further, want the judge to sanction GOOG for not complying with the judge's order- http://bit.ly/1cA5Hdo
    2 Sep 2013, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • Adam Gill
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    Patent Plays and jjcrunch - If you are going to invest in patent cases, you will benefit greatly by learning the difference between production and filing.
    27 Aug 2013, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • J.J. Cohen
    , contributor
    Comments (302) | Send Message
     
    Well, that was why I asked Patent litigator Adam Gill...Perhaps I should've said, 'safe to assume they produced the docs"? and perhaps further, your reply would've been better served if you answered the question(s) or corrected if you felt the error in any statement instead of a lecture - No need to be condescending - I'm sure you're doing the best you can - The best to you regardless...
    27 Aug 2013, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • Adam Gill
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    I was being serious and offering you advice, and good advice at that. Take it or leave it, it's your money.

     

    So here is how it usually goes. GOOG without question produced some documents and perhaps (but perhaps not) even some source code. The production may or may not be voluminous, and most likely was given to VRNG on the last possible day. It will take a little while for VRNG to review it, then ask GOOG to supplement and GOOG will say ok or no. If they say no, VRNG can file a motion to compel. I would expect a motion in 1-2 weeks if there is going to be one. That is fairly fast for this sort of thing, especially if the production was large or dense, but expert reports are due in a month so they have to get cracking.
    27 Aug 2013, 05:38 PM Reply Like
  • J.J. Cohen
    , contributor
    Comments (302) | Send Message
     
    I didn't think you were joking and the advice you were offering was necessary, as again, I asked PP to get educated on the matter so no, I don't think it was that great advice as I was already doing that.

     

    The "whole take it or leave it" attitude, again is unnecessary, condescending and rude...

     

    The rest was informative and helpful but some of it already known per other posters on other walls - Again, my statements only applied to this "produce vs file" issue -

     

    Tell you what, perhaps we got off on the wrong foot - if for sake of argument and blame, we did, let's try to be civil in our comments - If not, I am fine with "my money" and my way of learning so don't address me in the future, as I won't address you.. Thanks
    27 Aug 2013, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • J.J. Cohen
    , contributor
    Comments (302) | Send Message
     
    In the opening sentence, I meant was NOT necessary :)
    27 Aug 2013, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • netprf
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Adam Gill how has your opinion changed ...?
    given the VRNG filing dated August 29, 2013 ...

     

    http://bit.ly/15Ojv28
    2 Sep 2013, 06:13 AM Reply Like
  • Patent Plays
    , contributor
    Comments (847) | Send Message
     
    @Adam Gill

     

    "However if Google failed to file the requested documents we would most certainly see a Pacer update disclosing Google's failure to perform according to the order and a subsequent Vringo motion to the Court" 27- Aug 11:08am

     

    Then a Vringo motion to the Court...filed 8/29/13

     

    Adam - spend more time following the case. You might find that time more rewarding than attempting to be a moderator of this forum.
    2 Sep 2013, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • Revanche
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    Annnnnd...it looks like the MM sold his block. VRNG now down below yesterday's close.
    27 Aug 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • Adam Gill
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    Netprf - this is just a discovery battle, a sideshow. It does not move the needle of the case in terms of liability, just potentially the timing, and not by much if at all at this point. Next real issue (although a small one) is the judge's decision on supplemental damages, which should come soon. The big issue of course is whether the workaround allows GOOG to escape infringement.
    4 Sep 2013, 01:41 AM Reply Like
  • Leont68
    , contributor
    Comments (1356) | Send Message
     
    So any news? What is the time schedule again as of sept 20th?
    21 Sep 2013, 04:24 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|