Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Clearly Judge Jackson now knows his decision will be appealed regarding Laches and he has a chance to avoid that assuming he feels in retrospect he should of handled it differently
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
I/P ENGINE, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
)
AOL, INC. et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S RULE 59
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF PAST DAMAGES
Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Rule
59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to vacate the jury’s responses to question III.C of the
verdict form and order a new trial to determine the dollar amount of past damages.
As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, this Court should order a new
trial on the dollar amount of past damages for five reasons. First, the timing and Court
implementation of its laches ruling after the close of the parties’ respective cases, and the Court’s
forbidding I/P Engine to identify a specific damages amount to the jury, was fundamentally
unfair and highly prejudicial to I/P Engine. I/P Engine was precluded from explaining how the
evidence supported $118 million of damages accrued since September 15, 2011. Second, this
Court wrongly prevented I/P Engine from introducing evidence of Defendants’ accused
revenues, which formed the total revenue base. This evidence also would have enabled I/P
Engine to explain the damages amounts from September 15, 2011. Third, the jury’s damages
award is internally inconsistent; the jury awarded 35% of I/P Engine’s initial claimed damages
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 825 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 21605
2
against four defendants, but only 3.5% of I/P Engine’s initial claimed damages against Google.
Fourth, as set forth in detail in I/P Engine’s post-trial motion regarding laches, this Court’s
exclusion of damages from September 15, 2005 to September 15, 2011 was error. Fifth,
applying laches to AOL and Gannett was error, because there was no record evidence that either
had indemnification agreements with Google.
Next
Motion For a new TRial on the Dollar Amount of past damages (Laches)
Two New Motions by VRNG
First
http://www.scribd.com/doc/117329092/IP-Engine-Motion-for-Award-of-Post-Judgement-Royalties
I believe yes and the judge said NO..
They tried this before and the judge said no, now they are basically saying that the jury was "dooped" into believing that Google actually came up with the ad-words technology. I got this from another board. Reading through it now but I don't see anything in here that compels this to be granted. Maybe one of our lawyer friends can offer up an opinion.
Deposition of Mark Blais is very important read about it here... that's what was filed today made part of record...
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/2:2011cv00512/271949/766/3.html
Yes I agree with your assessment. Large short position volume was declining daily how can you cover? Easy drop the stock price, destroy morale to the max get the stock off the margin list and voila volume and short covering at much better levels. This is what I see. The case has been won , ZTE is probably going to be resolved before this, but we will get rulings here and if you follow Judge Jackson's track record I expect him to tack on money for Vringo. I just bought some cheap call options right now. The rule is to buy when everyone is fearful and sell when they are giddy.
No I called him twice last week, what is he going to say publicly? Why are people here afraid to call him and find out what he has to say? Please save me the trouble.
Your attitude is the prevailing one based on my review of various boards. THis is the reason why I see a lot of selling on any pop here. However the real money will be made as VRNG executes their strategy going forward. Most stocks lose early adopters because they become frustrated with how long things take. I go back to VHC as an example.
On August 10, 2010 VHC traded 208,000 for the whole week! Just 5 weeks later on September 7 it traded ten times that 2,215,100 and the stock jumped 60%.....
the realized gain is all that counts .... you can't use an unrealized loss
True but some people faced with a margin call and obvious frustration that is all over these boards have chosen to sell rather than put up money.. I think that's what we saw this morning, some liquidation by margin callers.
VRNG in Accumulation phase
I found this site regarding stages of a stock.
WINNING INVESTOR REALITY
TIME: Our main focus is on intermediate-term and long-term market activities. We believe that in the short-term we are dealing with random forces, which reduce our ability to control our investments. Our time frame definitions are:Short-term: a few days to 6 weeksIntermediate-term: 6 weeks to 4 monthsLong-term: 4 to 16 months.
TREND: Our main purpose is to identify a trend in its early stage and stay with that trend as long as it lasts. We believe that big money is made on big moves. The main tools that help us to identify a new trend and monitor the health of that trend are moving averages (MAs), trendlines, relative strengths and trend stage characteristics.
STAGES: A crucial task when working with trends is to identify the stage of a particular index or stock. The primary trend of the stock market always starts and finishes at the extremes. What do we mean by that? The real bottom of each bear market is characterized by extreme valuations: (1) stocks are extremely undervalued relative to their historical averages; (2) economic conditions are highly unfavourable; and (3) the sentiment towards stocks is negative. The opposite is true at the end of the bull market: (1) Valuations are at an all time high (we usually experience bubble conditions), (2) the economic conditions are near perfect and (3) everyone owns stocks. These market characteristics act as a map and help us to observe the end of the trend.
In addition to the market, individual stocks also experience their own stages. There are four phases of a main cycle for each stock. These are:
Stage 1: The Accumulation Phase - After a long decline, the stock starts to stabilize, despite negative news, financial problems and severe downturns in the Industry. While fundamental analyst continue to predict further declines, the stock remains in a narrow trading range, as the professionals take up all the supply.
The 40-week MA loses its downside slope and starts to flatten out; the accumulation action is all taking place close to the MA; the stock is trapped in a trading range where buyers and sellers have equal power. The stock may cross above and below the MA a number of times. Volume usually dries up.Our policy is to wait and closely observe the stock.
Stage 2: The Advancing Phase – this is the time to own the stock. Fundamental news is more favourable; the company introduces a new product or has a new management; earnings start to improve.The stock breaks out from the trading range on high volume and moves above its 40-week MA (which at the same time or shortly after turns to the upside.) The price usually moves away from the MA, but comes back to it from time to time, only to move away again. All swings and corrections take place above the stock's rising 40-week MA. The most important characteristic of this stage: the MA is clearly trending higher.
Stage 3: The Distribution Phase – after a long advance, prices start to stabilize; the company is a Wall Street’s favourite; fundamental news is excellent; earnings are at an all time high; and the stock is widely owned. Despite these positives, the stock remains in a narrow trading range as the professionals supply all demands.The 40-week MA loses upside momentum and starts to level out; relative strength shows signs of weakness; volume is high; the stock stays within a trading range; and price action revolves around the MA. The stock may move above or below the MA several times.This is the time to sell.
Stage 4: The Declining Phase – at the beginning of this phase everyone believes that the decline is only a correction; fundamentals are still favourable.The stock moves below its 40-week MA which itself turns down; relative strength declines; and the stock breaks major supports. Price moves away from its MA but comes back to it from time to time, only to move and stay below again.
Based on this information I say we are in the accumulation phase.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui
We are below the 40 week moving average and if you look at the chart you can see $3.00 is a long-term support area.
Opinions please. Thanks
Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=940&page=5#ixzz2FLvg5JCn
No I am with you here I think these extensions are to allow a deal to be done ...
Yes probably, could be a short trying to cover.....
Big Bid in from Inet (CINN) 100,000 shares plus....
While we are waiting for Google here isi some information I posted on another board regarding the German court system and the status of patent infringement in Germany...
A primer on patent infringement cases in Germany. Mannheim where VRNG's case is being heard is the 4th busiest in europe...
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yqu-wQ-JS38J:www.patentship.eu/patent_litigation.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&s rcid=ADGEESh4jl6FOXJE2UkhI0gptc2CC4Ukkyd-nk7nfYyYxGxPE7l0RwbyfFDllK51oC3ubNlCiVsYxqAoc3Yih-9FZPizWenORExrw8qhuUuBaJa0S7Un LGTPN6SDx_Vm4ezQSbwLdlwx&sig=AHIEtbTP7vtqlih1ZQJ0hVeyykjBodumVQ
Also... German Court system is favourable for patent litigation
http://www.pcworld.com/article/253274/ge....litigation.html
Germany's specialized court system, where cases are ruled on relatively quickly and it can be easier than in other countries to get an injunction, is increasingly leading technology companies to file patent lawsuits there, say patent law specialists.
Motorola sued Microsoft over patents it has on the H.264 video standard, which led Microsoft to move its European distribution center from Germany to the Netherlands even before the German court of Mannheim ruled in the case. Also, Samsung and Apple are involved in German patent lawsuits, involving a range of technology patents, and Apple and Motorola are also fighting over patents in German courts. All the companies involved declined to comment on why Germany is so popular.
"The impact is higher in the German market, due to its size, so that is a good place to start," said Joachim Henkel, a professor at the Technical University of Munich, who specializes in technology and information management. "Courts that deal with these things are specialized and comparatively fast."
Germany has highly specialized judges for patent matters, particularly at the district courts of Düsseldorf and Mannheim, as well as Munich, Hamburg, Frankfurt and Göttingen. "These judges handle hundreds of patent matters per year," said Klaus Haft, a German patent lawyer and board member of the European patent lawyer association, EPLAW. Most cases are filed in Mannheim and Düsseldorf. Mannheim is the fastest court for reaching a verdict according to Haft, with most cases receiving decisions in six to eight months, while a Düsseldorf court case takes between 15 and 18 months. The appeals process duration is typically one and a half years both in Düsseldorf and Karlsruhe, Haft said.
The courts in Mannheim and Munich are roughly twice as fast as the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which determines the impact imports have on U.S. industries and can grant injunctions based on patents, said consultant Florian Mueller, who writes a blog about patent issues.
The judges also have specific training to deal with patent cases. "At the Federal Patent Court, there are technical judges: judges who have an engineering degree and additionally studied patent law," he said.
If a company wins an injunction in a regional court in Germany, that injunction can be preliminarily enforced while the appeal is going on. If the appeals court rules the injunction was prematurely enforced, the plaintiff is liable for all the damages. That is why it is necessary to post a bond to guarantee that those damages can be paid for.
According to Henkel, companies prefer to file U.S. lawsuits if they are after damages, while Germany is preferred by companies that are seeking an injunction to halt sales of products that supposedly infringe its patents. Plaintiffs have a reasonable chance to get an injunction in Germany.
"This is completely different to the U.S. after the Supreme Court's decision in eBay vs. MercExchange," Henkel said. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of eBay in a patent dispute, effectively overturning a long-held U.S. court practice of issuing injunctions against infringing products in nearly all patent cases. "And so in Germany, injunctions are a powerful tool for the patent holder," Henkel said.
Sabine Agé, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property and patents, and secretary of (EPLAW), agreed with Henkel. "It is true that in Germany, as in other continental Europe countries, injunctions are available to any patent holder who succeeds in an action for patent infringement," she said in an email. "While in other countries like the U.S. or the U.K., the courts can decide that a patent holder (for example because it does not exploit the patent) should not be granted an injunction although the patent has been found infringed."
Agé and Mueller also emphasized that the bifurcated system is attractive for companies seeking injunctions. The validity of the patent is submitted to a court other than the one deciding on the infringement issue. Defendants will, if they can afford it, typically respond to an infringement lawsuit not only by defending themselves against the infringement allegations but also by bringing a "nullity action" before the Federal Patent Court, Mueller explained. And this process takes time. First all the prior art for the patent has to be determined. After that it takes 20 months until the court rules, and possibly another couple of years for an appeal, said Mueller.
"It is only in the cases where the patent is grossly invalid that German courts dismiss claims for preliminary injunction or stay proceedings for infringement on the merits," Agé explained.
According to Mueller, there is another factor that has to be taken into account. "The German 'Orange-Book-Standard' approach to standard-essential patents denies injunctions only if a variety of criteria are met, and the legal logic is not equity (fairness and reasonableness) but that a company that commits a severe antitrust violation by seeking an injunction won't get it," he said.
Under that standard, holders of standard-essential patents can obtain injunctions even if the patents are considered to have been licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, otherwise known as FRAND terms.
Currently, Motorola is using standard-essential patents it has on the H.264 video codec against Microsoft in Germany. If Motorola wins on April 17, this could exclude Microsoft from the German market. The H.264 codec is used in the Xbox and Windows 7, amongst other Microsoft products.
"It is correct that German courts have been the only ones in Europe ... to decide that an injunction can be granted on the basis of patents declared essential to a standard," Agé said. Even if the patent holder has agreed to grant a FRAND license when the patent was declared essential, and the patent user has already started license negotiations with the patent holder. "Dutch, French and Italian courts (those last two in preliminary proceedings) have taken a different view."
Agé pointed out that not all German lower courts rule in favor of standard-essential patent holders. The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court ruled in February that Motorola Mobility can no longer enforce its standard-essential patents for an injunction against Apple in Germany during the ongoing appeal.
While Germany might be a popular country for patent litigation, there are other countries to watch, Agé said. "Usually, there is simultaneous litigation in Germany, France, the Netherlands and sometimes in the U.K.," she said. And in those countries, there can be patent litigation with an equally big impact.
For instance, Apple tried to get an injunction against Samsung in the Netherlands. Samsung's European distribution center is located in the Netherlands, so if Apple would have won, this would have effectively paralyzed Samsung's business in Europe. The judge denied the injunction, meaning Samsung could continue its business in Europe.
This ruling is why Microsoft chose the Netherlands for its distribution center when it decided that Germany was too risky with Motorola's standard-essential patent litigation in mind, said Agé.
Also I found out how relatively cheap it is to launch a case there:
Pursuing patent infringement cases in Germany cost less than $200,000
http://www.iam-magazine.com/issues/Artic....94-fc364d7a52ce
Also...this nugget... here: http://www.jonesday.com/newsknowledge/pu....17f2c&RSS=tr ue
It is German law that will be applied to ZTE and British law in London. German Law is ver favourable to patent holders..
"In essence, therefore, if a court wants to determine infringement of the German part of the European patent, the court will have to apply German law. If it also wants to determine infringement of the UK part of the European patent, it will have to apply UK law, etc. The straightforward way of pursuing infringers, therefore, is to take the case to a court in the country where the infringing act is committed, so that the court will apply its national law, with which it is familiar. "
And Finally...
All about the patent system in Germany
http://www.iam-magazine.com/issues/Artic....ef-68e545c672bc
This part I found very encouraging since I believe Vringo has asked for an injunction :
A preliminary injunction may be obtain with 4 weeks of apply for it. So we could have a ruling on this by the first week of January. And if they determine validity the injunctions are permanent. THe patent courts consider patent infringement as a criminal act.
Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi#ixzz2FGhyBKBa
How can you be so sure?
that's right I would love to see Ravicher respond to this article but he won't because he has an agenda... . He worked for Google indirectly, that should say a lot about his writings here.
Then insider trades were pre-planned and automatically executed when the stock traded above $4.25 I believe. If you take a look at how many shares they own and how much was actually sold it is quite trivial. Google insiders sell billions of dollars worth of shares every month using the same principle, Bill gGates did it for years, Larry Elison Steve Jobs, it's just what you do to diversify when you are in that position. People highlight it for smaller companies but unless they are unloading the bulk of the position, it's not really a problem
Another good article highlighting why Ravicher's comments are irrelevant...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065091-vringo-vs-google-an-analysis-of-the-uspto-re-examination-debate?v=1355509899&source=tracking_notify
On December 13th, Daniel B. Ravicher penned an article titled "Will Patent Office Eliminate Vringo's Right to Future Royalties From Google?" that was subsequently published on Seeking Alpha. The central argument of the piece is that significant risk exists to the future royalties Vringo stands to collect from Google for patent infringement: "Google's attack on I/P Engine's patents at the PTO could also terminate any Vringo entitlement to future royalties."
The piece contained a number of opinions, running the gamut from insinuation, to exaggeration, and all the way up to and including patently false statements. I have considered the issue of USPTO re-examination in the past, albeit with a vastly different assessment of the risks involved than Mr. Ravicher's. This article will respond to Mr. Ravicher's position on the potential impact United States Patent and Trademark Office actions may have on the legal grappling between Vringo (VRNG) and Google (GOOG).
An Introduction
The immense subjectivity that clouds the Vringo case has created a speculative market, and it demands an analysis of the arguments made, as well as the reasons that individuals make those arguments. As Mr. Ravicher correctly notes, his writing represents opinion, not financial or legal advice. Mr. Ravicher has been vocal in his opposition to software patents. In the 2008 Google TechTalk "Protecting Freedom in the Patent System," he takes the position that patents on software stifle scientific development: "If patents aren't increasing the rate of innovation in an industry, they should get their nose out of it. That's an extreme position, I know, but it's one I hold onto." As far as non-practicing entities like Vringo: "They're doing what's best for them, even though it's not good for society for people to go around chilling conduct and chilling research." And Mr. Ravicher has given lectures to Google employees on the subject of patents at Google TechTalks twice, in 2008 and 2012. He is the Legal Director of the Software Freedom Law Center, a non-profit that Google supports. A Google employee makes this relationship explicit at another Google TechTalk when he states, "We financially support Eben whenever we can and his work with the Free Software Foundation as well as the Software Freedom Law Center" (Eben Moglen and Mr. Ravicher are both Directors of the Software Freedom Law Center). In addition to his position at the Software Freedom Law Center, Mr. Ravicher is a Litigation Counsel of the Software Freedom Conservancy, an organization to which Google has "donated substantially." Mr. Ravicher occupies positions in organizations that have a material financial relationship with Google. Although no direct financial engagement exists between Google and Mr. Ravicher, it would be unsound to accept Mr. Ravicher's opinions without knowing his background. One can now dissect the opinions he voices in his article chronologically (emphasis is added to the points that will be argued).
I. Google's Re-Examination Requests
In its litigation against Google, Vringo asserted two patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 6,314,420 and 6,775,664 (the '420 and '664 patents, respectively). To be uber technical, I/P Engine asserted only a handful of the claims within each of the two patents, specifically claims 10, 14, 15, 25, 27 and 28 from the '420 patent and claims 1, 5, 6, 21, 22, 26, 28 and 38 from the '664 patent. The jury found in its verdict that each of the 6 claims of the '420 patent and the 8 claims of the '664 patent were infringed by Google and its co-defendants (customers who use Google's systems). The jury also found each of these claims were not invalid for anticipation. The judge will decide whether the claims are invalid for obviousness, although the jury did find several preliminary factual questions for the judge to consider on that issue in Vringo's favor.
The underlined portion of the paragraph is factually incorrect. A ruling has already been handed down by the court, finding the patents nonobvious. Mr. Ravicher voices this misunderstanding of what has already occurred in the case no fewer than 3 other times in the article.
In the meantime, Google has asked the PTO to reexamine each of the asserted claims in the two patents. First, back in March, Google filed a request for reexamination of the 6 claims of the '420 patent. In its request, Google set forth 11 different reasons why the various claims were invalid. In July the PTO granted Google's request, noting that all of the prior art submitted by Google was new to the PTO (i.e. had not been considered during initial examination of the '420 patent) and that there did not appear to be a specific reason given by the original examiner for allowance of the six claims. This was quite an admission by the PTO, to say that the Examiner who issued these claims did so without a specific reason. I guess it was close enough for government work.
Here, Mr Ravicher makes a factual case, but mischaracterizes the agency's granting of Google's ex parte request for re-examination as a significant and indicative event. Requests like Google's are granted a staggering 92% of the time, according to the USPTO. In fact, Mr. Ravicher is aware of this statistic - he cites it in his 2012 TechTalk. Given this, Vringo's position that Google's request for re-examination is "a standard and typical tactic used by defendants in patent litigation cases" illustrates the fact that this was not "quite an admission by the PTO" at all, as Mr. Ravicher mistakenly calls it.
In September the PTO issued an Office Action rejecting all 6 of the claims under review and adopting each of the 11 different arguments Google made as to why the claims are invalid. The Office Action is called "Non-Final" by law, as patentees like I/P Engine must be given an opportunity to respond to any rejections made by the PTO before the PTO can make those rejections "Final." However, that does not mean the rejections are not serious. The PTO could have decided in its Office Action to uphold some or all of the claims and/or it could have only adopted some of the arguments Google made. It did not do so. It rejected every claim and adopted every Google argument.
Vringo responded to the PTO's Office Action in late November, and now the matter is back before the PTO to decide whether to maintain some or all of its rejections. I find it very unlikely that the PTO will do a 100% about face and abandon all of the 11 rejections it made of the '420 patent's claims. Instead, I expect the PTO to stand by at least some of its rejections and issue a Final Office Action in the near future indicating that it intends to cancel all of the 6 challenged claims.
The author again states the facts correctly, but draws an exaggerated conclusion. Five critical reasons discredit this conclusion.
1. Empirically, of the 9090 re-examinations conducted from 1981-2012, 22% of patents are entirely upheld, 67% have some claims modified, and only 11% are entirely cancelled. What Mr. Ravicher expects will happen has only happened 1 in 10 times historically.
2. The feedback on the validity of the Lang patents to this date runs against Mr. Ravicher's opinion. Of all patents, only 1-2% are litigated. Mr. Ravicher, in his 2008 TechTalk Powerpoint, calls these the "most valuable" of the patent pool. of those 1-2%, only 10% make it to trial, and an even smaller percentage of the patents are subject to favorable jury verdict. Of that smaller subset, 30% of them are found to be invalid, and 40% are found to be obvious. The jury and Judge Raymond Jackson found none of these problems in regards to the Lang patents. They are patents of high caliber, making up less than 0.1% of all patents that the USPTO grants.
3. Non-final really does mean non-final. Mr. Ravicher has personal experience with how often the USPTO reverses its non-final rulings. In his 2008 TechTalk, he mentions his organization's victory in invalidating Microsoft's FAT patent, and even shows a Powerpoint slide of the 2004 CNET article, "Microsoft Fat Patent Falls Flat" as a testament to the success of the re-examination. Fast forward 2 years to 2006 and the USPTO reversed itself and upheld the patent. Non-final office actions have minimal predictive power in the direction of final rulings, and historical data on the current situation lies squarely in favor of Vringo.
4. Vringo's response to the re-examination is strong. Mr. Ravicher takes every opportunity to summarize Google's arguments, yet mentions Vringo's responses as blips that heed none of his attention.
5. The term "near future" is mistakenly used. In the anecdote above it took more than 2 years for the USPTO to reach a final decision. On average, the entire process from filing takes 25.4 months, and can last up to 10 years. Google requested re-examination in March of this year. Even if every single card falls exactly as Mr. Ravicher wants it to, Vringo has the right to royalties until the USPTO issues a final ruling on both the '420 and '664 patents.
In addition to the reexamination of the '620 patent that is completely going in Google's favor, Google just a few weeks ago filed a request for reexamination of the 8 claims of the '664 patent. In that request, Google made 8 separate arguments why the claims were invalid. The PTO is now considering whether to grant Google's reexamination request, which usually takes them about two months to do. I fully expect the PTO will grant Google's request to reexamine all 8 asserted claims of the '664 patent and then subsequently issue an Office Action rejecting those claims for at least some, if not all, of the reasons given by Google in its request.
Here, Mr. Ravicher extrapolates his previous conclusion on the '420 patent to the '664 patent. Yet the USPTO has not even granted a re-examination. It has not even taken initial Office Action. And it certainly has not made a final ruling. The assertion is specious at best. Most importantly, the jury found that Google infringed on every single claim of both patents. The jury did not attribute damages and the ongoing royalty to particular claims or one patent, but rather to the infringement. Mr. Ravicher himself makes this argument in his article on VirnetX (VHC). He states, "In reality for VirnetX to 'lose' means that every single patent claim it is asserting must be found to either be invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. So long as one claim from one of VirnetX's seven currently asserted patents is found to be valid, enforceable and infringed by defendants' products, VirnetX wins, and is entitled to seek both monetary damages for past infringement and an injunction to prohibit future infringement." Vringo secured a verdict on 2 patents and 13 individual claims. Interpret Mr. Ravicher's point regarding VirnetX's situation as you wish.
II. PTO Can Cancel Patents Even if Jury/Judge Find Patents Valid
Although I predicted the jury would find the Vringo patents valid, I believe the PTO will likely cancel (i.e. invalidate) all of I/P Engine's asserted patent claims from both patents now under review, or at least require they be changed to a narrower form before confirming them. This may seem as though I've changed my opinion on the issue of whether the patents are valid or not, but I haven't. The apparent difference in my opinion results from two important differences between reexaminations at the PTO and validity challenges in court.
First, patent claims under review at the PTO are given their broadest reasonable construction, whereas in Court patent claims are given the construction that the Judge thinks is most correct, whether that be broad or narrow. In fact, District Courts in some circumstances aresupposed to interpret patents narrowly so as to preserve their validity. A broader patent claim is more easily invalidated, as it is more likely to encroach upon the prior art, that would thus invalidate it. So, the fact that patents under reexamination are interpreted broadly means they're more likely to be found invalid. The Court's claim construction in the Vringo v Google case did not adopt the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and therefore it was narrower than how those same claims will now be reviewed by the PTO. This means it is more likely the PTO will find those claims invalid.
The distinction Mr. Ravicher draws between the broader interpretation of the USPTO and the narrower scope of the judicial process is well made. Yet he somehow reaches for the insinuation that this difference means a higher probability that the USPTO will find the claims entirely invalid. The imminently logical conclusion of his point is simply that the broader nature of the claims will be found invalid, and the patent claims will be modified into a more narrow construction. This happens more than two-thirds of the time historically. If this is indeed the case, it does not effect the outcome in court, because as Mr. Ravicher notes, the court already interpreted the patents in a narrow view and the jury found that this narrow view was both valid and infringed upon by Google.
The second hugely important difference between reexamination of patents at the PTO and validity challenges in court is that the burden of proof to show invalidity is much lower at the PTO, where only a preponderance of the evidence has to show that the patent claim is invalid, whereas in court the evidence must be clear and convincing that the claims are invalid. This difference in burden of proof has already caused situations where the exact same patent was upheld in court but later found invalid through reexamination at the PTO. This result may seem strange, but it is completely in accordance with the law. Just this October, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is the exclusive Court of Appeals for all patent cases, said in the case of In re Baxter International: "The majority here concludes-rightly in my view-that a prior court decision in which a party has failed to prove a patent invalid does not bar the Patent and Trademark Office from subsequently reexamining that same patent. And, it concludes that, despite a final court judgment reaching a contrary conclusion as between the patent holder and one alleged infringer, the PTO is free to conclude that the patent is, indeed, invalid. That proposition is an unremarkable one." So, just because the jury upheld the I/P Engine patents as valid under anticipation, and even assuming the judge does not reverse that decision or find the patents invalid under obviousness, that does not mean the PTO will necessarily do the same. The PTO can -- and I expect will -- find I/P Engine's asserted patent claims invalid and thus either cancel them or require I/P engine to change them. If and when the PTO cancels the claims, they can no longer be infringed and Google would therefore not be required to pay any more royalties from that point forward. However, to avoid any confusion, a canceling or changing of the patents by the PTO would not require a refund of any monies paid by Google to Vringo prior to that time.
Again, Mr. Ravicher is correct in his summary of the distinction in burden of proof between the trial and USPTO re-examination. However, he pieces together facts into what amounts to be a very light web.
1. Even though the standard of proof is lower, the empirical statistics regarding USPTO re-examination subsume the argument. Even with a lower burden of proof, only around 1 in 10 patents are entirely invalidated.
2. Ex parte re-examination gives the advantage to the patent holder. What Mr. Ravicher does not mention is that Google could request re-examination for either patent only through the ex parte channel because the Lang patents were filed before 1999. Yet the ex parte procedure gives a marked advantage to the patent holder. As David O'Dell and David McCombs of Haynes and Boone LLP write, "as for ex parte reexamination, it is often regarded as insufficient because after a reexamination is ordered, the third party's participation is limited to one statutory reply prior to the examination process, which may only be filed if the patent own files a pre-examination optional statement." Google no longer has any further input into the re-examination process of either patent. Vringo does, including Lang's rebuttal that was submitted in late November as well as potential appeals in the future. Vringo controls the future direction of the re-examination as well as its pace. And only a final ruling on both patents that entirely invalidates every single one of the thirteen infringed claims would give Google an exemption from future royalties. Mr. Ravicher found this out the hard way in his loss against Microsoft in the USPTO re-examination process. As he lamented, "Microsoft has won a debate where they were the only party allowed to speak, in that the patent re-examination process bars the public from rebutting arguments made by Microsoft."
3. Even if the USPTO finds the Lang patents invalid, the court's judgment of past damages and ongoing royalties will most probably stand under the principle of res judicata. Mr. Ravicher provides an extremely shallow summary of the Baxter International case which he cites as support for his opinion. Although he is correct that the court found that the USPTO can invalidate patent claims that a court has already ruled on, the judges noted that "these conclusions do not mean, however, that when the PTO does act in the context of a reexamination proceeding, its conclusions can alter the binding effect of a prior judgment in a judicial proceeding" (In re Baxter International, Inc.) In the case, the patent office itself noted that "if a federal court awards relief to a patent holder against an infringer, a subsequent reexamination decision that the patent is invalid does not disturb the judgment of the court or alter its binding effect on the parties." In the remote instance that the USPTO invalidates every claim of both patents by 2014 or 2015, Vringo's past damages award and ongoing royalties to that point will be safe. In addition, the circumstances of the trial in question are vastly different - the jury had actually ruled that the patent claims were invalid and obvious, a verdict which was subsequently overturned by the Judge. Finally, the appeals court's ruling in Baxter did not resolve the issue permanently. The opinion contained dissent, and different judges on the Appeals Court may rule differently in Vringo's much stronger case.
Conclusion
After a fundamental review of Mr. Ravicher's position on the USPTO's re-examination of the '420 and '664 patents, it is evident that only a small part of the story is told. Yet the disagreement on the subject is also a reason that both sides exist in the marketplace. And Mr. Ravicher's willingness to take a contrarian position should be commended. Vringo remains a speculative investment rife with known and unknown risk. It is of the utmost importance for every investor to analyze the risks that surround the company from as many perspectives as possible.
Your welcome. I am from the old school. I would rather talk to someone face to face or on the phone than just email or text. The reason is that when you can hear someones voice you can hear tone and emphasis. The written word does not end itself to that unless you choose to emphasize certain words. I am comfortable holding Vringo here. I have had a core position since April and a trading position so I am excited about the future. There isn't anything Dan Ravicher can say that will change my mind. I have done the dd and I watch pretty much every trade. I think the next few months will be very rewarding. I try and stay away from the minutiae and focus on big picture developments.
Just got off the phone with Cliff
Nothing earth shattering. Touched on a few issues. He just got back from Minneapolis, good meetings there nothing more to add. They are not concerned about Ravicher, they are aware of him but not really "going to waste energy" on him. They are building a company and that will be evident in the near future.
That's about all. If anyone else wants to call him please do and update the board
Thanks
Mike I agree with you If I get a hold of him today I will address the pr angle. I am sure that once this case gets settled and the ZTE case we will have many more institutions on board. He will need help. Remember this company is only 3 months old!
EDVA Addresses Ravicher and Makes a Prediction
http://seekingalpha.com/author/edva/instablog
Just for fun lets take the latest SA offering from Dan Ravicher ["DR"] and examine it paragraph by paragraph. Remember, an "expert" parroting a position that has little basis in fact does not somehow make it more likely to materialize. Just as important if not more so, is that one should not "act" on such a position if it involves the stock market as doing so may be tantamount to fleeing your house given an earthquake warning in an area where little threat exists only to find out later that the "new" invention claiming seismic activity was suspect.
In the third line down in the first paragraph the word "mere" implies "paltry" and therefore in that context suggests the jury felt the suit brought by Vringo must have been something less than significant. I argue vociferously that since Vringo won on all counts with respect to infringement, the jury's state of mind, particularly in light of the questions they asked of the court during deliberations, was probably quite punitive. The remainder of DR's first paragraph seems to mimic the argument of one of the litigants (guess who). The second paragraph begins with what seems to be a thinly veiled warning that Google intends to double down on the specious argument of damages with respect to the jury tabulations. This argument is not centered on facts presented during the trial but no matter, lets stay tuned to see if a federal judge is willing to rule for something that was not presented in his courtroom. The author suggests that people should worry about this.
Further on, DR talks about the "successful" opening of a separate front in this case, meaning simply that the USPTO will review the Lang 420 Patent. It is interesting to speak of this as though one has gotten the last seat on the next Russian excursion to the international space station. Far from being terribly difficult, reexaminations with a reasonable presentation of something new referenced as prior art often get the nod. DR goes on to discuss how he has warned in the past that an appellate court may overturn the jury's finding of infringement and validity but does little to offer the reader an accurate picture on how long the odds are against an appellate court doing so (and they are very long indeed).
So this is where critiquing all of DR's arguments becomes tedious, as on closer inspection they often appear slanted, illogical and inaccurate. As a result we are not going to proceed paragraph by paragraph and will simply confine ourselves to the major weaknesses. One weakness is to suggest that the PTO will permanently invalidate all of the 420 claims in the "near future" without providing anything but a passing reference to Vringo's response. Since the average wait for the USPTO to get to a final action is 25+ months, and since the PTO hasn't even decided yet to review the 664 Patent, DR appears to be taking liberties with the expression "near term."
A quick note for you math geniuses out there: DR claims that Vringo will not see hundreds of millions of dollars but leaves open the possibility that Vringo will be paid up until the USPTO decides its final action. From my calculations this would appear to be around the first week of November 2014 (or perhaps longer depending upon whether the 664 Patent is reviewed). So that would be two years worth of royalty payments to Vringo. Since DR has made the case that a narrowing of the claims to avoid invalidity by Vringo could lead to a successful workaround by Google, one may infer that a workaround is unlikely to be successful until such a decision (if it ever is) is made by the USPTO.
Lets marry this thought with another of DR's observations. He states that the court has neither ruled on the question of obviousness nor a future royalty rate. In fact the court has ruled on both (see docket numbers 799 here & 801 here) and did so on November 20, 2012. While perhaps not as artful and fulsome a description as some would like, line three on 801 has the important sentence "The Running Royalty Rate is 3.5%." If one assumes that the Judge used the apportionment rate of 20.9 % established by Dr. Becker (the only one presented at trial) multiplied by 96% of Google's U.S. revenues multiplied by 3.5%, we get a total of $316M (based upon flat revenue) up until the average time in which the USPTO normally rules. So if we square this interpretation of the logic of Professor Ravicher with the rest of his argument we get back to the only thing he can hang his hat on to arrive at a figure that is less than the several hundred million he says won't happen. And that is that the Judge must use math that was not presented at trial. I have said before that it remains a possibility that the Judge for some reason will decline to correct the past damages or even offer supplemental damages. For the record I expect that he will not decline to do so since he likely knows an appellate court will correct if he doesn't. But to think that the Judge might move from being someone who will not overturn or increase past damages to an active participant in fuzzy math is beyond the pale. Therefore, it is my opinion that DR has already lost his argument against an award of multiple hundreds of millions to Vringo.
A few other observations: One, I think we will see a ruling on the interest and supplemental damages prior to the other rulings. This is the main reason that Vringo did not explicitly ask for a correction when they filed the response to Google on this same motion. If they had it would likely have delayed a decision by the court and perhaps even resulted in a hearing. Vringo knows that if the Judge does the correct math on the supplemental damages that whether JJ fixes the past damages or an appellate court does, it is probably going to happen. This ruling will also clarify how the future damages are to be calculated since the court will have done this calculation for the supplemental.
Food for thought…there is no way for us to know whether a juror has come forward to speak about the past damages. We live in a digital age and one or two of them may just be curious enough to see how this all turns out. If so, they may well have seen that there is conflict about this verdict. If you spent a few weeks of your life on a case of some import and felt you may have gotten it wrong would you want to do something about it? I'm not saying this has happened but it seems strange that there has been no motion to get signed affidavits from the jurors. Keep in mind too that the Judge could have called one or more jurors back already. In any event big decisions are coming and my money is on the fact that what was presented at trial will prevail. In addition to his ruling on the supplemental the Judge is well within his rights to correct the past damages (see here). He may also clarify more fully what his Judgment of November 20 actually means. Why would he do all these things at once? Perhaps just to get on with it. This would leave the parties with the stark choice of settling or taking it up on appeal. I think there is an 80% likelihood we see the supplemental ruling in the next few business days and a 50% chance of the correction and clarification at the same time.
Disclosure: I am long VRNG.
Google filed two motions on Pacer no link yet.... not sure of content other than this from stock twits..815 - Reply to Response to Motion(802) and 816 - Request for Hearing re: 802
I would be embarrassed if I was associated with his school. I certainly would not want to send a child of mine to be tutored by him. The school either enjoys the publicity he provides or doesn't care but I am sure they know what he is doing.
Thanks for this a little perspective from the Ravicher trash....
Cliff away on business , Minneapolis from our previous conversation. I will talk to him tomorrow
Thanks PK I am going to call see if I can find out anything.
NO offence Mike but you keep spouting off about IR, I gave you Cliff's number did you call him?
I agree nothing can be done here for the Google case, we need news from the court. The ZTE case depends on courts action also which they have no control over. Lang's desires to do something in search depends on where he is in the process. So what are they supposed to say? If you have a criticism with IR you should call the source, complaining about it here is of no value..
Exactly In researching Ravicher he stated that the re-exam process takes anywhere from 18 months to 10 years due to appeals etc. Here says the Patent office will make a final decision in 4 - 6 weeks?
One more loss for PUbpat. Here they asked the patent office to invalidate Forgents jpeg patent...
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3564526/PubPat+Claims+Prior+Art+on+JPEG+Patent.htm
The result was that Forgent reached a settlement , a licensing agreement with the parties they were suing.
http://news.cnet.com/Forgent-settles-JPEG-patent-cases/2100-1014_3-6131574.html
Here is what PUBPAT is all about in their case against Monsanto which they lost. Pay attention to the courts characterization of them (bolded for emphasis)
http://holmansbiotechipblog.blogspot.ca/2012/03/district-court-sees-through-misleading.html
Friday, March 30, 2012
District Court Sees through Misleading Allegations in PubPat Lawsuit against Monsanto
In a recent post, I pointed out similarities between "fabrications" regarding conditions at factories in China manufacturing Apple products, and the misinformation being promulgated regarding gene patents and agricultural biotechnology. Some prime examples of this sort of misleading information are evident, I think, in the lawsuit filed last year by the Public Patent Foundation against Monsanto. In a post on the case, I pointed out that the plaintiffs in the case seemed to lack standing, and that there seemed to be no basis for PubPat’s allegation that Monsanto had sued involuntary/inadvertent infringers, or that there was any reasonable likelihood that the plaintiffs (organic farmers and the like) would be sued for infringing Monsanto patents on recombinant crops.
Fortunately, the district court saw through the exaggerated allegations raised by the Public Patent Foundation in the lawsuit against Monsanto, and dismissed the case last February. The court's decision specifically addresses some of these unfounded assertions.
For example, the complaint alleges that certain plaintiff farmers and seed distributors were afraid that their crops and seeds would be contaminated by recombinant Monsanto products. In rejecting this argument, the court pointed out that none of the plaintiffs claimed that contamination had actually occurred in any of the crops they had grown or seeds they have sold.
The complaint further alleged that organic farmers risked losing their organic certification if their fields became contaminated by recombinant product, but the court found “no evidence in the record that any farmer has ever been decertified as organic by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program (the “NOP”) because of seed contamination.” In fact, according to the NOP, “[o]rganic certification is process based, and as a result, “f all aspects of the organic production or handling process were followed correctly, the presence of a detectable residues from a genetically modified organism alone does not constitute a violation of this regulation.”
The complaint also alleged that the plaintiff farmers risk being sued for patent infringement based on inadvertent growth of crops with Monsanto's patented traits. However, the court found that Monsanto had never filed a patent infringement suit against a certified organic farm or handling operation over the presence of patented traits in its operations. In fact, during oral arguments Monsanto stated that they had never sued the party who did not “want to make use of the traits that are manifested in [defendants’] transgenic products.” The court noted that Monsanto had expressly declared that it is not their policy “to exercise [their] patent rights where trace amounts of our seed or traits are present in [a] farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.” The court went on to find that although the complaint “alleges without specification that defendants have accused certain non-intentional users of Monsanto’s seed of patent infringement and threatened them with [litigation, no] plaintiffs claim to have been so threatened.”
The complaint alleged that the organic farmers feel threatened by the fact that between 1997 and 2010 Monsanto filed 144 patent infringement lawsuits against farmers. However, the court found that plaintiffs had overstated the magnitude of Monsanto's patent enforcement, since this "average of roughly 13 lawsuits per year is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million."
The plaintiffs alleged that Monsanto had filed patent infringement lawsuits against other farmers who did not want to grow patented crops, citing specific examples where this had allegedly occurred, but the court found that this assertion was:
“belied by the decisions in the suits against the referenced individuals. See Monsanto Co. v. Parr, 545 F. Supp. 2d 836, 842-44 (N.D. Ind. 2008) (defendant intentionally induced others to infringe Monsanto’s patents); Monsanto Co. v. Nelson, No. 4:00-CV-1636, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25132, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 10, 2001) (Monsanto alleged that defendants had intentionally saved and replanted second generation seed with patented traits in violation of their licensing agreement); Monsanto Can. Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2001 FCT 256 [120] (Can.) (finding that the defendant saved and planted seed “he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant”).”
I found it particularly gratifying that the court addressed the widely held misperception that Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer who took Monsanto to the Canadian Supreme Court (and lost) and became somewhat of a folk hero in the process, was an innocent victim whose fields were contaminated by Monsanto product. If you actually read the decisions from the Canadian courts, it is very clear that the court was convinced that Schmeiser had actively selected for and cultivated Monsanto Roundup ready seeds on his property without authorization and without paying any licensing fee (see my previous post).
The court was particularly critical of the Public Patent Foundation’s characterization of an attempt by Monsanto to reassure organic farmers that they would not be sued for inadvertent infringement as an "implicit threat" by Monsanto. The Public Patent Foundation had written a letter to Monsanto basically asking for a blanket immunity for all the plaintiffs against ever being sued for patent infringement, even if they did intentionally engage in infringing activity. Monsanto responded with a statement of its policy, which it had previously published in other venues:
“It has never been, nor will it be[,] Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in [a] farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”
Amazingly, the Public Patent Foundation characterized Monsanto's statement as an implicit threat, and as such the basis for declaratory judgment action.
The court totally rejected this flawed logic, declaring it "objectively unreasonable for plaintiffs to read [the language of Monsanto statement] as a threat." The court also stated that,
"ndeed, plaintiffs’ letter to defendants seems to have been nothing more than an attempt to create a controversy where none exists. This effort to convert a statement that defendants have no intention of bringing suit into grounds for maintaining a case, if accepted, would disincentivize patentees from ever attempting to provide comfort to those whom they do not intend to sue, behavior which should be countenanced and encouraged. In contrast, plaintiffs’ argument is baseless and their tactics not to be tolerated.”
It bears noting that critics of Myriad Genetics have repeatedly complained that Myriad should make an explicit statement that the company promises not to sue entities that infringe its BRCA patents in the context of research or non-commercial testing. But I've always maintained that Myriad is rightly concerned that such a statement could be used against them. Here we see a perfect example of this, with the Public Patent Foundation using Monsanto's attempt to reassure inadvertent infringers that they will not be sued as a weapon against Monsanto.
The district court in this case, fortunately, rejected the argument, and noted that public policy dictates that companies such as Monsanto should be encouraged to provide such reassurance, not punished, and that the Public Patent Foundation's tactic of using the statement against Monsanto is "not to be tolerated." But with all the advocacy groups out there gunning for Myriad, is it any wonder the company would be reluctant to open itself up to the negative unintended consequences of an explicit statement of immunity for some infringers?
Posted by Chris Holman at 12:17 PM
Hey don't attack me personally here I don't agree with you let's leave it at that. If PUBpat was so powerful why don't they attack VHC? They don't invalidate patents the patent office does and only if there is compelling reason too. The courts have affirmed these patents and ultimately that's more important. If you are going to respond don't make it personal or I will respond accordingly
You don't have to be a patent attorney read Lang's response to the USTPO, filed 11/26, then you will understand. When you read Vring's attorney's motion response and saw how logical, concise and practical it was, do you have to be an attorney to understand how Google's motion wasn't?
Here is a great post from another board.
It is quite interesting that one of the very few specifics that Dan actually spoke about in his ST conversation w/phillyphinest and some other ST members was related to the "decimal issue".
I think it is very telling of both VRNG's and GOOG's legal strategy by how they each portrayed this circumstance in their respective response and counter-response.
Note that GOOG did not call it a "decimal point transposition" but described it as a "miscalculation" (remember in the section where they were trying to get the other co-defendants' past damages decreased where they argued that "clearly, the jury could not have intended for co-defendants to pay 10x more than us, so you must decrease their amounts"?).
This is significant because based on the info that has been unearthed so far (w/special thanks to phillyphinest for the DD on FRCP60 as well as for digging up those prior case law precedents), we know that jury calc errors cannot be changed by the judge unilaterally, BUT decimal point transpositions fall under the category of "clerical errors" which CAN be changed by the judge w/o a request having been submitted by a party to do so. [Side note: GOOG may likely be laying the groundwork for an appeal on this should JJ invoke "clerical errors" and claim that JJ improperly invoked this doctrine and should have recognized it as a calculation error that is outside his purview]
So again, Dan is accurate (albeit only because he is playing semantics w/his audience) in his vehement denial when he states that "GOOG never mentioned a decimal issue in their response", because they did not mention a decimal issue -- they mentioned a calculation issue, which is a completely different animal.
And Dan is again correct in that VRNG never motioned for the judge to increase the verdict award. Again, keep in mind that when you talk to Dan or provide comments to his articles you MUST BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT WORDS YOU USE, OTHERWISE HE WILL USE YOUR OWN SEMANTICS AGAINST YOU. LIKEWISE, YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION TO THE SPECIFIC WORDING HE USES AS WELL. And Dan is also correct when he states that VRNG's actions of briefly mentioning it in a footnote does not constitute asking the judge to intervene. He is right in saying that mentioning something in passing as part of a footnote is not the proper way to ask the judge to take action.
Notice all of Dan's incomplete truths and half-truths again as I mentioned in a prior post? Damn, he's good... ...but let's continue along in sifting thru the smoke and mirrors...
What Dan has conveniently left out (and by leaving it out, he can correctly claim that he told the facts and that he did not tell any lies) is that by VRNG portraying the matter as a "decimal point transposition", they are opening the door for JJ to determine that this was indeed a "clerical error", which then unshackles JJ to not be bound by waiting for a motion request, and empowers JJ to correct this "clerical error" unilaterally. So, yeah, Dan is right: VRNG has not motioned for JJ to change the damages amount and they likely won't -- but that is precisely the point. VRNG's strategy is to NOT have to ask for it, but instead empower JJ to make the change himself under the doctrine of "clerical errors", thereby narrowing GOOG's potential rebuttal as well as avenues of appeal.
And it is also interesting that Dan continues to describe this process as "changing the jury's verdict" and that "it won't happen" and "no one has asked the judge to do it". Again, all true statements. But again, read between the lines: VRNG doesn't need JJ to touch the jury's "verdict". JJ now has multiple options: If he elects to pass on the "clerical errors" approach, then JJ can simply award additional supplemental damages on top of the $30M under the manifest injustice doctrine, thereby reaching the $158M in damages without actually "changing the jury's verdict" (remember, the jury's verdict was for $30M and it will remain $30M; this additional supplemental damages amount is a separate item!)
So again, Dan is correct in saying that "changing the jury's verdict won't happen". Of course not! Changing an actual jury verdict is an extremely difficult and arduous task that is akin to taking Pandora's box, wrapping it in governmental red tape, and then tossing it into the middle of a minefield. A judge would have to be suicidal or braindead to go anywhere near that dumpster fire when a much cleaner path exists to achieve the same end-goal.
Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=898&page=4#ixzz2Ew95jkWW