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

Vringo V Google Trial: Days 6, 7, 8 And 9

|Includes: GOOG, XpresSpa Group (XSPA)

For the Vringo (VRNG) v Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) patent infringement case, following up on my report of Day 1's events and my postings of the Minutes from Days 2 and 3, and the Minutes from Days 4 and 5, here are the Minutes from Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and today of this week, Days 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the trial:

The most notable events from these Minutes for me are the following.

First, on Tuesday the judge denied the introduction of evidence regarding a patent purchase agreement between Disney and Google, which Google was apparently attempting to introduce as an example of comparable value for the patents in suit. Then, on Wednesday the Judge said he would issue a curative jury instruction, which I am assuming, although I can't know for sure since I wasn't able to attend the trial in person, relates to the stricken evidence.

Second, as I predicted in my preview of the trial. the courtroom has been repeatedly closed to the public for the presentation of proprietary testimony, most likely relating to Google's technical and financial information. This means it is impossible for anyone to have access to all the relevant information and evidence other than the parties, the judge and the jury. Thus, any member of the public attempting to make predictions about the outcome of the case is, at best, doing so partially blind.

Third, Vringo rested its case in chief on Wednesday, after which Google asked the judge to immediately rule in their favor on the basis that Vringo had not introduced enough evidence to prove infringement. The judge denied Google's motion. This is all very typical and to be expected. In fact, Google's lawyers have to make this motion, else they can be held to have waived certain arguments for appeal. Every defense lawyer knows they have to move for JMOL (Judgment as a Matter of Law, formerly known as Directed Verdict) at the end of a plaintiff's case in chief. To not do so is borderline malpractice. Nonetheless, Judges grant such motions in only the most extreme cases. So, I do not read the fact that the Judge denied Google's motion here as significant. It merely means he believes they had introduced enough evidence to make a case. Now the ball is in Google's hands to present its case in chief, disputing Vringo's allegations of infringement, making its own presentation of invalidity of the patents, and suggesting its own formula for calculation of appropriate damages if the jury finds at least one of Vringo's patent claims infringed and not invalid.

For more of my thoughts on the case, you can see my interview from last weekend with StockTwits' Phil Pearlman.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.