XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[$oldier Hard]

VRINGO PROVIDES UPDATE ON I/P ENGINE VS. AOL, GOOGLE ET AL. LITIGATION

(Thomson Reuters ONE via COMTEX) -- Court Orders Defendants to Respond to I/P Engine's Motion for Ongoing Royalties Within Ten Days

NEW YORK - May 1, 2013 - Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of mobile technologies and intellectual property, today provided an update on its wholly-owned subsidiary I/P Engine, Inc.'s litigation against AOL, Inc., Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., and Target Corporation (collectively, "Defendants"). This summary is qualified in its entirety by the Court's rulings.

Earlier today, the U.S. District Court denied Defendants' Motion to Compel the Deposition of Dr. Stephen Becker and for an Enlargement of Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Post-Judgment Royalties. The Court found no basis to permit further discovery on I/P Engine's Motion for an Award of Most-Judgment Royalties, and ordered Defendants to respond to the motion within ten days. The Court also permitted I/P Engine to file a reply to Defendants' response within five days of the entry of Defendants' response.

Background

On November 6, 2012, a jury in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia ruled in favor of I/P Engine and against Defendants with respect to Defendants' infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,420 and 6,775,664. After upholding the validity of the patents-in-suit, and determining that the asserted claims of the asserted patents were infringed by Defendants, the jury found that reasonable royalty damages should be based on a "running royalty," and that the running royalty rate should be 3.5%. The jury also awarded I/P Engine a total of approximately $30.5 million. On November 20, 2012, the clerk entered the Court's final judgment.

I/P Engine's Motion for an Award of Post-Judgment Royalties

I/P Engine presented evidence at trial that the appropriate way to determine the incremental royalty base attributable to Google's infringement was to calculate 20.9% of Google's U.S. AdWords revenue, then apply a 3.5% running royalty rate to that base.

I/P Engine has requested that the Court order Defendants to pay ongoing running royalties for their continuing infringement of I/P Engine's patents from November 20, 2012, the date of the entry of final judgment, until either (i) Defendants cease their infringement or (ii) April 4, 2016, the expiration date of the patents.

I/P Engine has argued that the Court should conclude that an upward adjustment to a 5% running royalty rate for Defendants' ongoing post-judgment infringement is appropriate. I/P Engine's damages expert, Dr. Stephen Becker, also reached the conclusion that there is no reason to depart downward from the 5% royalty rate because the patents are known to be valid and the patented technology is acknowledged to be "mission critical" for Google.

Further, I/P Engine argued that Defendants' ongoing infringement is undisputedly willful because Defendants are fully aware that their use of AdWords has been adjudged to infringe all of the asserted claims of the valid and enforceable patents-in-suit. Therefore, I/P Engine requested that the Court enhance the ongoing royalty rate to 7% in light of Defendants' ongoing willful infringement.

Finally, I/P Engine requested that the Court order that, among other things, Defendants pay ongoing royalties to I/P Engine on a quarterly basis in certified funds or by wire transfer, accompanied by a statement certifying, under penalty of perjury, the U.S. revenue attributable to Defendants' use of AdWords and the calculation of the royalty amount.

A copy of I/P Engine's motion is available online at http://bit.ly/UPYkFh.