Seeking Alpha

Rdwyer3577

Rdwyer3577
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Rdwyer3577's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Vringo (VRNG) has won its patent suit against Google (GOOG). The company has been awarded $30M in damages and a royalty on Google search ad revenue through 2016, when Vringo's patent expires - some reports indicate the royalty rate is 3.5%. Google will almost certainly appeal. Vringo shares remain halted. [View news story]
    There was Bly ne unnamed source who provided the $30m number? It seems 3.5% is the correct royalty figure, but $30m is not 3.5% of Google's relevant yearly revenue, it's 3.5% of Google's relevant quarterly revenue. The relevant yearly income is ~$120m Is something being reported incorrectly? There is nothing on the court's docket report as of yet so the only way to know exactly what the verdict was is for somebody to have been in the courtroom. The first article indicated only an unnamed source provided information, not very reliable in my opinion!,
    Nov 6, 2012. 04:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • More on Vringo-Google: Of the $30M awarded to Vringo (VRNG), Google (GOOG) is ordered to pay $15.9M, AOL $7.9M, and InterActiveCorp $6.6M. Target and Gannett owe pocket change. Though the jury has ruled Google owes Vringo royalties, the final decision on royalty rates rests with the judge. Vringo was originally seeking nearly $500M in damages. Shares still halted. [View news story]
    I'd like to know if the $30m number is correct? If you look at 3.5% of GOOGLE's relevant income it would be $30m a quarter, or is my math wrong?
    Nov 6, 2012. 04:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Volatile Vringo (VRNG +9.7%) is jumping as its trial with Google continues. Yesterday, jurors were asked to discard (at Vringo's request) cross-examination testimony from a Vringo witness regarding a patent licensing deal between Disney and Google. In a "mid-trial report" offered yesterday evening, SA's Steve Kim argued Vringo has established a prima facie case for infringement, following the testimony of a liability expert, while cautioning Google is set to bring out its own experts. [View news story]
    "Vringo witness regarding a patent licensing deal between Disney and Google." This was fantastic news for Vringo, this testimony was brought out on cross examination of the Vringo Expert becasue Google wanted the jury to know that they paid a significantly lower amount of money for the Disney Google licenisng deal than Vringo has calculated their licensing deal to be if Google had paid them instead of just stealing Vringo's patent. Well, on cross the Vringo expert started to testify and once he did there was an objection by Vringo. And the objection noted that the Disney Google deal was irrelivent and the type of technology in the deal was nothing like Vringo's patent and the Judge slammed Google and their lawyers on this issue. So at first it looked like the Judge striking the testimony from a Vringo expert was bad, in REALITY, it was damn good for Vringo.
    Oct 25, 2012. 04:52 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • After a volatile day featuring trading volume over 5x higher than average, Vringo (VRNG -18%) closed with big losses, as trading ended without a Google settlement announced. A short-lived afternoon rally was attributed to a report of a settlement that would up being discredited, though some remain intrigued by the fact the Vringo-Google trial (set for an Oct. 16 start) no longer appears on a court docket. The fact Vringo's stock offering closed today may have contributed to the volatility. [View news story]
    Everything is pointing towards a settlement and a big win for VRINGO!! The docket is pro VRINGO!
    Oct 10, 2012. 02:01 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo (VRNG -6.4%) has been volatile in trading today, as investors wait to hear the results of both a Vringo motion for sanctions against Google, and court-ordered settlement talks between the companies. Shares were down as much as 15% before briefly turning positive, and then selling off again. [View news story]
    The main docket entry for today is below. The statement by the court, "The Court Makes Rulings on the Record" is very interesting. To me it makes it clear the Magistrate Judge does not want his rulings to effect the stock when a settlement may be imminent. Both sides made their arguments requiring the sanctions issue and then headed back to the main courtroom to work out a deal. I'm quite sure they have been talking about a settlement since the Judge ruled on the Motion last week and ordered settlement talks. The sides don't wait until they get before the Judge to talk about settlements, they have been doing so for days. This is evident in the second docket entry I have copied and pasted below. It shows the parties have been talking and came up with a joint motion between Plaintiff, I/P Engine and Defendant, AOL which reads, A Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice of I/P Engine's Claims Relating to AOL's Advertising.com Sponsored Listings by AOL, I/P Engine, Inc. I/P Engine would not move to dismiss anything jointly with any of the defendants if they didn't think a settlement was imminent. It's coming folks!!!

    10/09/2012 691 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard:Motion Hearing held on 10/9/2012 re 282 MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses filed by I/P Engine, Inc., 277 MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. Present were Jeffrey Sherwood, W. Ryan Snow, Frank Cimino, Jr. and Kenneth Brothers on behalf of the plaintiff and David Bilsker, David Perlson, Steve Noona and David Nelson on behalf of the defendants. Mr. Sherwood argues motion #277 and Mr. Bilsker responds. The Court makes rulings on the record. Mr. Cimino argues motion #282 and Mr. Perlson responds. The Court makes rulings on the record. The Court will enter an order in this matter. Parties adjourn to participate in a settlement conference with Judge Leonard in this case and a final pretrial conference later in the afternoon with Judge Jackson. Court adjourned. (Court Reporter Sharon Borden, OCR.)(cdod, ) (Entered: 10/09/2012)

    10/09/2012 690 ORDER, AGREED, re. 202 Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice of I/P Engine's Claims Relating to AOL's Advertising.com Sponsored Listings by AOL, I/P Engine, Inc. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that I/P Engine's claims for relief against AOL relating to AOL's Advertising.com Sponsored Listings are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys' fees, costs of court and expenses relating to the dismissed claims shall be borne by each party incurring the same. Entered and filed 10/9/12. (Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 10/9/12). (ecav, ) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
    Oct 9, 2012. 06:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Midday top 10 gainers: SRPT +162%. BIOL +38%. VRNG +25%. OCN +16%. KFS +16%. ASPS +14%. SNFCA +12%. TRU +10%. HOV +10%. ICAD +10%.
    Top 10 Losers: GST -21%. LEAP -16%. XRTX -15%. THTI -13%. PBM -12%. SSY -10%. HOLL -10%. KRA -10%. ATRS -9%. KIOR -9%[View news story]
    Google's motion to dismiss denied!! Judge Order's settlemtn discussions for all parties.

    ORDER DENYING Defendants' 237 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendants AOL Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., and Target Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Google Inc., AOL Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation, Gannett Company, Inc. It is further ORDERED that parties engage in settlement discussions before United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard @ 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, 10/9/12. Entered and filed 10/3/12. (Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 10/3/12). (ecav, ) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
    10/03/2012 Set Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 10/9/2012 at 10:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard. (cdod, ) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
    10/03/2012 573 Settlement Conference Order: This case has been referred to the undersigned for a settlement conference. In order to facilitate the just and expeditious resolution of this case, it is ORDERED as follows: All parties and their lead counsel are required to appear at a settlement conference scheduled in the United States District Court, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, at10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, for the purpose of conducting discussions, in good faith, towards a compromised resolution of this case. Counsel must notify parties attending the settlement conference that electronic equipment (cell phones, pagers, laptops, etc.) is not permitted in the courthouse without the express permission of the Court. (See Order for further specifics) Additionally, The parties must: Submit a brief memorandum of five pages or less directly to the chambers of the undersigned (do not file in the clerk's office) by noon on Friday, October 5, 2012. Do not serve a copy of the letter on the opposing party unless you wish to disclose your settlement position. The memorandum can be faxed to (757) 222-7257. Identify the lawyers and party representatives who will attend the conference. (See Order for further specifics) Entered and filed 10/3/12. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard on 10/3/12). (ecav, ) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
    Oct 3, 2012. 03:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Midday top 10 gainers: SRPT +162%. BIOL +38%. VRNG +25%. OCN +16%. KFS +16%. ASPS +14%. SNFCA +12%. TRU +10%. HOV +10%. ICAD +10%.
    Top 10 Losers: GST -21%. LEAP -16%. XRTX -15%. THTI -13%. PBM -12%. SSY -10%. HOLL -10%. KRA -10%. ATRS -9%. KIOR -9%[View news story]
    Google's motion to dimiss was denied, VRINGO will soar. Judge Orders Settlment discussions for all parties.
    Oct 3, 2012. 03:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Peregrine Pharmaceuticals (PPHM) disappears, falling 80% in premarket trading following the announcement of data discrepancies in Phase II testing of its bavituximab drug. [View news story]
    This may be your entry point. Once Peregrine found the discrepancy they had to report the find, what hey have not report, because they can't until they are 110% sure, is whether the study was flawed showing the bavituximab drug did not do well in the study, or did better than originally reported. Glass 1/2 full or Glass 1/2 empty. Of course, trust in the reporting on these trials could be a problem moving forward. If the study shows that bavituximab drug had more of an impact than first reported, then this very weel could be a fantastci entry point!!
    Sep 24, 2012. 09:54 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Vringo Is A Sell: Read Judge Posner [View article]
    Just an average investor doing my own thing. I realize Vringo is a speculative "investment" but based on my research I believe the risk is worth it. Heavy hitters on both sides of the aisle as far as attorneys go, I have worked with Quinn Emanuel on other matters(nothing having to do with this matter), but I think they lose here and by lose I mean settle!! Long for sure!!
    Sep 12, 2012. 08:52 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Vringo Is A Sell: Read Judge Posner [View article]
    If you take a look at document 209 on the Docket Sheet of the law suit in the Eastern District of Virginia, Google attorneys make a motion demanding document related to the following:

    (1) all documents provided by
    Innovate/Protect, Inc. to potential investors that concern the patents-in-suit and this litigation;
    (2) the consulting agreement between Dickstein Shapiro LLP ("Dickstein Shapiro") and Donald
    Kosak; (3) all documents of Andrew K. Lang responsive to Google’s requests for production
    (and, to the extent that any such documents have not been maintained or no longer exist, to
    provide an explanation for their destruction); and (4) all documents related to Dickstein Shapiro's
    pre-litigation involvement in offers to sell the patents-in-suit, negotiations related to the patentsin-
    suit, and the actual sale of the patents-in-suit from Lycos, Inc. to Plaintiff.

    If one is to review what Google's attorneys are demanding here and the timing of the demand, it looks as if the attorneys are looking for some way to put a valuation on the patents. Of course the value is not only what Vringo paid for them, but how they were used by Google, AOl and others. The demand suggest Google's attorneys are looking for valuation to come up with a settlement number. Just my opinion!! Below is the proposed order:

    Exhibit 1
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
    NORFOLK DIVISION
    I/P ENGINE, INC.,
    Plaintiff,
    v. Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-512
    AOL INC., et al.,
    Defendants.
    [PROPOSED] ORDER TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
    On this day came Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google"), by counsel, upon the Motion to
    Compel Plaintiff I/P Engine Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to Produce Documents, and, upon consideration of
    the arguments set forth in the Notice, and for good cause shown, it is
    ORDERED that Plaintiff, within five (5) days of the entry of this order, shall produce the
    following documents:
    1. all documents provided by Innovate/Protect, Inc. to potential investors that concern
    the patents-in-suit and this litigation;
    2. the consulting agreement between Dickstein Shapiro LLP ("Dickstein Shapiro") and
    Donald Kosak;
    3. all documents of Andrew K. Lang responsive to Google’s requests for production; and
    4. all documents related to Dickstein Shapiro's pre-litigation involvement in offers to sell
    the patents-in-suit, negotiations related to the patents-in-suit, and the actual sale of the
    patents-in-suit from Lycos, Inc. to Plaintiff.
    It is FURTHER ORDERED that, within five (5) days of the entry of this order, to the
    extent that any of Mr. Lang’s documents responsive to Google’s requests for production
    have not been maintained or no longer exist, Plaintiff shall provide an explanation for
    their destruction.
    Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-FBS Document 209-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 3870
    Dated: August _____, 2012 Entered: _____/_____/_____
    F. Bradford Stillman, Magistrate Judge
    United States District Court
    Eastern District of Virginia
    Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-FBS Document 209-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 3871
    WE ASK FOR THIS:
    By: /s/ Stephen E. Noona
    Stephen E. Noona
    KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
    150 West Main Street
    Post Office Box 3037
    Norfolk, VA 23514
    Telephone: (757) 624-3000
    Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
    David A. Perlson
    QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
    SULLIVAN LLP
    50 California Street, 22nd Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94111
    Telephone: (415) 875-6600
    Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
    Counsel for Defendant GOOGLE INC.
    Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-FBS Document 209-1 Filed 08/14/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 3872
    Sep 12, 2012. 08:12 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
10 Comments
7 Likes