Google Cannot Penetrate Vringo's 7th Amendment Armor [View article]
@ jheckert
USPTO cannot save Google
Fed Circ USPTO decision 2016-2017 while CAFC ruling Q1 2014
NO chance of a USPTO final ruling preceding the final judicial CAFC ruling
This means that even if USPTO invalidated all claims on both patents after exhausting all appeals channels (which is extremely remote), Vringo would still risk nothing.
Google Cannot Penetrate Vringo's 7th Amendment Armor [View article]
Very well written article this time
USPTO Patent '420 review took 14 months (March 2012-May 2013) plus another 2-3 years of appeals to reach the final decision
14 months for patent '664 means Jan 2014 + appeal = 2016-2017
So Fed Circ USPTO decision 2016-2017 while CAFC ruling Q1 2014
In my opinion NO chance of a USPTO final ruling preceding the final judicial CAFC ruling
This means that even if USPTO invalidated all claims on both patents after exhausting all appeals channels (which is extremely remote), Vringo would still risk nothing.
Is Google Going Out On A Limb With Quest For Vringo Reexamination? [View article]
From Hogmark on VRINGO dot FREEFORUMS dot NET ... A post from Hogmark a known VRNG employee on VFF:
This pertains to claims Ex Parte Reexamination that was ONLY granted for claims 10, 14, 15, 25, 27, and 28. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 16-24, 26, and 29-36 are not subject to reexamination. The basis of the rejection is because the context of the word "wire" and "wire system" was not clear enough in those claims in question. This type of thing happens all the time and it does not mean anything other than Vringo will appeal it and narrow the claim (that is what you do) - however they probably do not need to even narrow the language in order to win against Google's inevitable appeal. This is what patent litigation is all about. This is all part of the game. that's it. non-event.
Google Cannot Penetrate Vringo's 7th Amendment Armor [View article]
USPTO cannot save Google
Fed Circ USPTO decision 2016-2017 while CAFC ruling Q1 2014
NO chance of a USPTO final ruling preceding the final judicial CAFC ruling
This means that even if USPTO invalidated all claims on both patents after exhausting all appeals channels (which is extremely remote), Vringo would still risk nothing.
Google Cannot Penetrate Vringo's 7th Amendment Armor [View article]
CG is wrong
Google Cannot Penetrate Vringo's 7th Amendment Armor [View article]
USPTO Patent '420 review took 14 months (March 2012-May 2013) plus another 2-3 years of appeals to reach the final decision
14 months for patent '664 means Jan 2014 + appeal = 2016-2017
So Fed Circ USPTO decision 2016-2017 while CAFC ruling Q1 2014
In my opinion NO chance of a USPTO final ruling preceding the final judicial CAFC ruling
This means that even if USPTO invalidated all claims on both patents after exhausting all appeals channels (which is extremely remote), Vringo would still risk nothing.
Stop Gambling On Patent Lawsuits [View article]
Your short position will be wiped out soon
Only an amateur could short a $2 stock
Stop Gambling On Patent Lawsuits [View article]
the face seems familiar
Stop Gambling On Patent Lawsuits [View article]
Why even trade at all ? put your money under the mattress!
Is Google Going Out On A Limb With Quest For Vringo Reexamination? [View article]
A post from Hogmark a known VRNG employee on VFF:
This pertains to claims Ex Parte Reexamination that was ONLY granted for claims 10, 14, 15, 25, 27, and 28. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 16-24, 26, and 29-36 are not subject to reexamination. The basis of the rejection is because the context of the word "wire" and "wire system" was not clear enough in those claims in question. This type of thing happens all the time and it does not mean anything other than Vringo will appeal it and narrow the claim (that is what you do) - however they probably do not need to even narrow the language in order to win against Google's inevitable appeal. This is what patent litigation is all about.
This is all part of the game.
that's it.
non-event.
Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
yes, this is a non-event
Is Google Going Out On A Limb With Quest For Vringo Reexamination? [View article]
14 months for patent '664 means Jan 2014 + appeal = 2016-2017
Fed Circ USPTO decision 2016-2017
District court CAFC Q1 2014
=
zero risk
Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
14 months for 664 means Jan 2014 + appeal = 2016-2017
Fed Circ USPTO decision 2016-2017
District court CAFC Q1 2014
=
zero risk
Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
420 took 14 months
14 months for 664 means Jan 2014 + appeal = 2016-2017
CAFC trial appeal Q1 2014
no way USPTO is before CAFC
Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
FILTERING,” MIT MASTERS THESIS (SEPTEMBER 1995) (“LASHKARI”) DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
Is Google Going Out On A Limb With Quest For Vringo Reexamination? [View article]
REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. JAIME
CARBONELL REGARDING VALIDITY OF
U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,314,420 and 6,775,664
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,202,058 TO ROSE (“ROSE”) DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,185,558 TO BOWMAN (“BOWMAN”) DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,006,222 TO CULLISS (“CULLISS”) DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,421,675 TO RYAN (“RYAN”) DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
LASHKARI, “FEATURE GUIDED AUTOMATED COLLABORATIVE
FILTERING,” MIT MASTERS THESIS (SEPTEMBER 1995) (“LASHKARI”)
DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]
REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. JAIME
CARBONELL REGARDING VALIDITY OF
U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,314,420 and 6,775,664
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,202,058 TO ROSE (“ROSE”) DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,185,558 TO BOWMAN (“BOWMAN”) DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,006,222 TO CULLISS (“CULLISS”) DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
U.S. PATENT NO. 6,421,675 TO RYAN (“RYAN”) DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
Vringo: '420 Patent Re-Examination And Confusion [View article]