Well, since the settlement has not happened yet, it is a bit difficult to have factual evidence of one. And as far as monetary figures go, I highly suggest you study the annual reports submitted by direcTV as well as articles attributing a minimum of 550 million dollars a year in revenue based on targeted advertising. Draw your own conclusions, but Vringo management has nothing to do with the aforementioned numbers or reports.

Why would you sell with a potentially huge direcTV settlement possibly days away? Response to the court due on January 12th, and the last court doc said settlement discussions were in progress. It is possible that DTV targeted ads are worth up to 6 billion in revenue from 2013 - 2019 and the QS patents may be a big part of that. Just my 2 cents....

There is a chance that we could see the Annual Report earlier than Mid-March. Up to the company. Will it have any surprises in it? As a shareholder, I certainly hope so, but will not be holding my breath.

V24

From what I can tell, Vringo does not submit a separate Quarterly Report for the 4th quarter of the calendar year. The 4th quarter is included in the Annual Report which normally comes out in March. You can look at all of the Quarterly and Annual reports for Vringo here:

http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl

Same thing happened with Belkin. Their response was due on 26Sept2014 and was not submitted. Judge reminded them on 29Sept2014 and gave them 3 days to provide cause. Case was settled on 1Oct2014, then Vringo submitted a Notice of Dismissal doc to the court on 2Oct2014 stating the action had been dismissed with prejudice.

At this point, my primary concern is DTV. 2014 annual revenue of 33 Billion of which 550+ million or so was from targeted advertising. CES is an afterthought right now.

I am currently "all in" for the direcTV settlement. I have not seen any warning letters go out to Huawei or Ericsson yet, so I don't think that Vringo (at this point in time) is going after them. The '641 patent is "cash box" money for the company. It is worth remembering that the QS patents apply to web based targeted advertising as well, which means infringers other than just direcTV and Comcast. GLTAL!

My WAG is 33.8 million in cash as of 1Jan2016. NOK patents worth 22 million minus the 35% that we owe NOK going forward. Value of QS patents TBD.

Thanks! Expecting a material settlement with direcTV/AT&T followed by possible insider buying. Deadline for D/A response is 12Jan. Previous request for an extension indicated settlement discussions were in progress. Every day is one day closer.

Link to original lawsuit filing by QS against D/A:

https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sdny-dtv-doc-1-20oct2015.pdf

Link to D/A request for extension which states "settlement discussions":

https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sdny-dtv-doc-19-10dec2015.pdf


See blog section 3 for more info:

https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

All of the ZTE links are located at the top of the blog page called "ZTE For Reference Purposes" Doc 304 effectively ended all litigation thus indicating funds had been received. I posted this info previously here on iHub.

https://vrng24.wordpress.com/zte-for-reference-purposes/

Doc 304: https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/sdny-doc-304-18dec2015.pdf

Some info on "priority date" can be found here:

http://www.bios.net/daisy/patentlens/2343.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_right


The priority date for both QS patents being litigated in SDNY against DirecTV/AT&T is 21Sept1999. See links below:

https://www.google.com/patents/US9047626

https://www.google.com/patents/US9117228

The 20 year patent life starts with the filing date. Unfortunately, the priority date is often referred to the "effective filing date" when it precedes the official filing date.

Given the above info; when do the QS '626 and '228 patents expire? The answer will be critical in determining past damages as well as future royalties.

21.5mil is in the bank. ZTE/VRNG cases dismissed with prejudice. See SDNY Doc 304. Link below:

https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/sdny-doc-304-18dec2015.pdf

Read this when you have a moment:

https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sdny-dtv-doc-1-20oct2015.pdf

I want to stress that the 550 million in revenue for DirecTV from 2013 was from "ad revenues". Here is part of the article from where that number come from and in which "addressable advertising efforts" are credited for the increase:

DirecTV Credits Addressable Ads With Future Ad Growth

by Wayne Friedman, December 12, 2013, 5:00 PM

DirecTV is expecting its advertising sales to grow quickly over the next three to four years -- specifically due to rapidly expanding addressable advertising efforts.

Speaking at the company’s investor day, Paul Guyardo, executive vice president and chief revenue and marketing officer for DirecTV, estimates that business will grow 30% to 40% over the next three to four years.

The expectation is that DirecTV ad revenues will increase to $750 million by 2016, from $550 million at the end of this year.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/215476/directv-credits-addressable-ads-with-future-ad-gro.html

VRINGO, INC. REGAINS COMPLIANCE WITH NASDAQ MINIMUM BID PRICE LISTING RULE:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-inc-regains-compliance-nasdaq-133102310.html

I am still doing DD on the QS patents, but have not been able to figure out what type of value they have. Hopefully a lot more than the '641 patent that we settled with ADT, TYCO, etc on.

DirecTV/AT&T discussing settlement with QS. See SDNY Doc 17 in Section 1 of the blog:

https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

The 8-k is listed on V's website:

http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl

Wont get bad news from NDRC today. We are only in stage III below:


Describe the trial process.



There are four main stages to a trial, including (i) the pleading stage; (ii) the evidence preparation stage; (iii) the hearing stage; and (iv) the post-trial stage.

The pleading stage: The pleading stage starts from the time when the plaintiff files a complaint with the people’s court. The complaint will be served on the defendant. Within 15 days upon the service of process (or 30 days if the defendant is a foreign national or entity), the defendant may submit a statement of defence to the court. The statement of defence is not mandatory. The defendant’s right will not be affected even if he chooses not to make such a statement of defence. If the defendant does not consider the court competent, the defendant may file an objection to jurisdiction during the 15-day (or 30-day) period. The ruling on the objection is appealable.

The evidence preparation stage: The people's court shall, serve a notice for the production of evidence to both parties at the same time with the notice of acceptance of the case to the plaintiff and the notice requesting a response to the defendant. The time period for preparing evidence may be agreed upon by the parties and approved by the people’s court, or it could be designated by the people’s court. When the time period for producing evidence is set by the people’s court, the time period shall be at least 15 days for the first instance hearing and at least 10 days for the appeal case. For a complicated case like an abuse of dominance dispute, the parties will normally be given more time to gather and prepare evidence, such as a few months. In some cases, the parties may be allowed to make two rounds of evidence submission: the first round is to submit basic evidence and the second round is to rebut the evidence submitted by the other party in the first round. The parties may also apply to the court for extension of the time period originally set by the court. If the defendant files for objection to jurisdiction, the court will first decide if it has the jurisdiction over the case. The parties will not be required to submit evidence before the jurisdiction issue is solved.

The hearing stage: During the court hearing, the court will first ask the parties to make a brief opening statement. Then the parties will present their evidence. Each party has the right to cross-examine the evidence of the other side. If there is a lot of evidence in the case, sometimes evidence cross-examination is conducted in a separate hearing a few days before the official hearing. After cross-examination of the evidence, the parties will debate over the key issues in the dispute. The collegial bench plays an important role in presiding over the debate of the parties. The collegial bench may set forth the key issues to be investigated, and may find out the facts by directly asking questions to each party. After the parties have fully presented and argued their cases, the court will ask each side to make a final statement. As a routine, the court will ask the parties if they are willing to settle the case. If both parties intend to reach a settlement, the court may preside over the settlement negotiation, or let the parties to negotiate the settlement by themselves.

The post-hearing stage: After the hearing, the court will set a date for the parties to submit post-hearing statement. The court will make a judgment based on its review of the parties’ submissions and the hearing. The parties can appeal against the judgment to a higher level court if they are not satisfied with the decision of the first instance court. If the case can be settled by the parties after the hearing, the court will close the case without issuing a judgment.

Link: http://globalcompetitionreview.com/know-how/topics/72/jurisdictions/27/china/ (Q29)

Doc 298 (G response to sealing/de-designation) posted in Section 1 of the Blog:

https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

Lowes got a 30 day extension to file their response to the summons in the case filed against them by IGS. Response now due 4Jan instead of 3Dec. See section 1 of the blog (Doc 10) for more info:

https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

I have noticed that myself. I use it largely as a point of reference for buyer/seller sentiment and to gauge share interest.

I am sorry. It was denied today:

CERTIORARI DENIED

15-69 BIOLITEC AG, ET AL. V. ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.

Link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/113015zor_3e04.pdf

PAGE 4


R/

V24

SDNY Doc 295. Request for Kevin Smith (QEU&S) to appear as Counsel for Google in the NDA case. See Section 1 of the blog for more details:


https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

I mentioned the market/courts closed today. SDNY is also closed tomorrow, but NASDAQ is open 9:30 AM - 1 PM with AH from 1 PM to 5 PM.

I already ate my humble pie on Twitter. Been more than 2 months since V submitted their M4S and Z submitted their response to it...

I may be very wrong (and others will surely point it out), but as far as I know, Vringo has to close at or above 1.00 for ten consecutive trading days before the 14th of Dec.

With that in mind, I see the 'last possible minute' as being the 30th of November. Assuming the shorts will be unable to take Vringo under a dollar in those 10 trading days, on the 14th (which is the deadline), Vringo will have successfully met the requirement to remain listed.

Here is some info from Vringo:

June 18, 2015: Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that on June 17, 2015 the Company was notified by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) that it has granted the Company an additional 180-day grace period, or until December 14, 2015, to regain compliance with the minimum $1.00 bid price per share listing requirement. The Company’s common stock will continue to trade on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “VRNG”. Therefore, the notification has no immediate impact on the listing of the Company’s common stock.

Info from NASDAQ:

In order to regain compliance (if the deficiency is based on the failure to maintain the minimum bid price), the company’s closing bid price must be at or above $1.00 for a minimum of ten consecutive trading days during such period.

http://www.mbbp.com/resources/business/nasdaq-delisting.html

With all due respect, where are you getting the date of 17Dec from as being the last possible minute?

Doc 293 out. Mag Judge Maas scheduled conference on 8Dec at 9 AM to discuss the de-designation of the Google docs. See section 1 of blog:

https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

Added SDNY Docs 290, 291, 291-1, 291-2, 291-3, & 292 (all dealing with G documents) to Section 1 of Blog: https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

The word I got is that everything passed except the increase in A/S from 150mil to 250mil. That was rejected (which is very good news).

True, but the motion has to be denied in a timely manner (meaning before the original deadline has elapsed). If the deadline passes without the Judge saying "denied", then it is probably safe to assume the motion was "approved by default".

It appears that unopposed motions are being granted by Kaplan by default. A non-response apparently constitutes approval.

New doc 289 from SDNY. Z requests 2 more days to respond to V doc 285 about Google NDA. See blog section 1 for more:

https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

Doc 285 out. G does not want their involvement in the NDA made public. V asking K to force G to de-designate confidential info. I also added docs 286, 287 and 288 to Section 1 of the blog:

https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

This is all I can find:

International Development Group Ltd. (IDG) is a holding company that owns majority interests in fliCharge and Group Mobile. IDG’s subsidiaries generated over $7 million in combined revenue in 2014.

R/

V24

If you are referring to the IDG acquisition, it happened in October, so you wont see anything until the 4th quarter ER is released next year. Here is some preliminary info from the 10Q that helps a little bit:

On October 15, 2015, the Company completed the acquisition of International Development Group Limited, a Maryland corporation (“IDG”). Pursuant to the
Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), the Company acquired 100% of the capital stock of IDG, including two of IDG’s subsidiaries,
fliCharge International Ltd. (“fliCharge”), in which IDG owns 70% of the capital stock and controls the operations, and the wholly-owned Group Mobile
International Ltd. (“Group Mobile”). fliCharge owns patented conductive wire-free charging technology and is focused on innovation, sales, manufacturing
and licensing core technology to large corporations in various industries. Group Mobile is a company with full service technical and customer support in
rugged computers, mobile devices and accessories. The Company expanded their intellectual property and technology portfolio with this acquisition.
In consideration for the acquisition, the Company issued an aggregate of 1,609,167 shares of the Company’s newly designated Series B Convertible Preferred
Stock (“Series B Preferred Stock”), par value $0.01 per share. Of the shares of Series B Preferred Stock issued, 1,604,167 shares were issued to the Sellers,
5,000 shares were issued to IDG’s legal counsel as compensation, and 240,625 shares were placed in escrow to secure certain of the Sellers’ indemnity
obligations under the Purchase Agreement for a period of up to 12 months. The 1,609,167 shares of Series B Preferred Stock are convertible into an aggregate
of 16,091,670 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share. In addition, the Company issued to one of the Sellers 575,000 shares of the
Company’s unregistered common stock in consideration of his forgiveness of debt.
In connection with the acquisition, the Company also entered into a Consulting Agreement with IDG’s former Chief Executive Officer and director for an
initial term of six months, which may be extended on a month-to-month basis or longer thereafter, and the payment of $9,000 per month.
In connection with the entry into the Purchase Agreement, the Company issued to a finder a warrant to purchase up to an aggregate of 500,000 shares of
common stock of the Company, at an exercise price of $0.50 per share and expiring on April 15, 2021 (the “Warrant”).
Link: https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/vringoinc_10q_20151109.pdf

Hope this helped!

R/
V24

Iron Gate Security v Lowes lawsuit for patent infringement filed in SDNY on 9Nov2015. Docs 1, 1-1, 1-2, 3, 4, and 5 are in section 1 of the blog:

https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/

Yes, I did say before the ASM. But my WAG is that we see the ER today AH around 4:10 or so.

I have tons of guts :) What I don't have is money :(

If I did, I would be buying hand over fist and joining RM80 and CS in building up a storehouse of shares. Those two cats will be very rich once the ZTE wall comes down and starts an avalanche of settlements with the other infringers. The wall is weak and may only need one large blow from a sledgehammer. Could Kaplan deliver it soon? Could happen!