Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Vringo, Inc. And Worlds, Inc. Reflections On Events- Feb 16, 2015

|Includes: FORM Holdings Corp. (FH), WDDD

We've made important observations about these two patent assertion entities on various blog outlets and I'd like to mention a few items.

In the Vringo (VRNG) case many are wondering why ZTE is challenging the effected patents by filing the USPTO reexamination action. Vringo has filed no Patent Infringement Markman Hearing in the USA, therefore why should ZTE move for immediate reexamination? Its all about FRAND. Having won litigation in the United Kingdom and Romania, Brazil (injunctions) ZTE realizes the Global License under FRAND terms is what lies at the end of the road, and they want this road to be short. Therefore filing the USPTO action makes sense as a ruling of invalidation by the USPTO would eliminate the need of being committed to US royalties, per the Global license. There are limits to what kind of Royalties would be beyond FRAND terms, and its best for Vringo to be careful as ZTE has already filed anti-trust action in Europe.

The simple solution today is for ZTE to agree to a Global license with repayment terms in those countries that ZTE prevails in patent reexamination or litigation. The larger question is whether Vringo has denied that request?

Worlds, Inc. (OTCQB:WDDD) continues to await a Markman Hearing result in Mass Federal Court. Federal Judge Denise Caspar heard the Markman in October of 2014, but unlike some of her contemporaries Judge Caspar is not known for her turnaround times. Just last week Worlds filed to included "sealed court records" disclosing Worlds proprietary "source code" related to its patents. This comes on the heels of Worlds Attorney physical inspection January 9, 2015 of all relevant Activision Blizzard Source code. Not coincidental is the followup filing that Activision Blizzard's various other titles, and associated revenues be amended into Worlds Patent infringement lawsuit. By all accounts it appears the contested source code was a "match" for litigation purposes.

Disclosure: The author is long VRNG, WDDD.