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.
I agree, but not because a "cheerleader" convinced me. This board is beginning to sound like a high school "pep" rally, and for those unaware of this, high school pep rally boards scare many people away. Saying there is little or no risk in investing in this stock is a flat out lie, and everyone knows it or ought to. CD's and bonds and low-risk mutual funds entail very little risk, but a stock is a stock, and the stock of one company depends on that one company, and in our case depends upon just a few people. An untimely death (God forbid), a change of conviction, or any number of factors could drastically change things. I see absolutely no reason why this stock should not gain 200-300% in the next 4 months, but hyping that fact with numerous exclamation points and endless chatter only scares many long-term investors (the kind we want) away. Let's not scare them away, nor scare ourselves away. Sleep well tonight.
Joe,
Couldn't agree more than overly positive statements begin to sound like pumping. As with nearly all stocks, success is a curvy line composed of 5 steps forward and 4 back, or some similar combination thereof. I'm already well invested, with another buy order of 50,000 shares down below in case of a bear raid, and another 100,000 shares to be bought once I liquidate my holdings in VRNG, either after it pops or after another 1.5 weeks. And I'm not alone in my intention to invest large sums of money in this thing. If history is any indication of how this stock will play out then things are very favorable, but, as you soberly mentioned, there is always possibility of hitting rock bottom at a moment's notice. Thanks for the reality check...always appreciated!
Tink
With WDDD enjoying more and more exposure each weekend, it would not surprise me if early next week we see the end of .28 and .29. Another article by Seeking Alpha or the like and this thing will hit the ceiling!
Now is when we need a buyer in for about 200,000 shares to blow us through this resistance! Or, we can chip away at it slowly...
If we close high of day that bodes VERY well for Monday!
This is a great place to load up some shares! Just bought into this one...had my eye on it for quite a while and now it looks too good to pass up.
Wow, there is some persistent, relentless buying going on!
Wow, there is some persistent, relentless buying going on!
Should be interesting to see if the next wave of buying comes in soon. If it does .3 will fall quickly. This is quite impressive, actually, that those holding shares have not yet sold them at these levels...makes it appear we are now ready to head North! Looks like we're a bunch of stubborn shareholders bent on getting at least 50 cents for our shares!
That's a beautiful thought with which I could easily grow accustomed to happening.
Hey Celtics,
I don't necessarily want it, but I do think there is a high likelihood it happens. What do I want? I want the price to rise into the .6's and .7's within the next month. If a bear raid takes place I think we'll get there faster...otherwise I think we're gonna churn rather slowly. Oh, and I want the price to rise to that range in a straight upward line with no dips or peaks. LOL! (By the way, I do think we're finished with prices in the teens; Markman's too close for the price to go that low now)
I think this thing needs one more "bear" raid down to the low or mid 20's to shake out the wavering and then she'll not only take off into the mid-30's but remain there and establish .3 as a new higher low. This will transfer another couple hundred thousand shares from the hands of those who want out to the hands of those who want in for the long haul and then the small, petty "asks" in the 20's will disappear.
Seeking Alpha article
Vringo: Court May Have Telegraphed Decision Worth 40% Of This Stock's Market Cap
February 21, 2013 | about: VRNG, includes: GOOG, MSFT
Disclosure: I am long VRNG, GOOG, AAPL. (More...)
Regardless of your views on patents and patent litigation, the dynamic nature and high stakes involved result in trading and investing opportunities. Patent litigation is currently an important issue for many corporations: Apple (AAPL) is in an epic worldwide patent battle against Samsung (SSNLF.PK); Motorola (GOOG) is at war with both Microsoft (MSFT) and Oracle (ORCL); and Carnegie Mellon University just won a $1 billion judgment against Marvell Technology Group (MRVL).
Patent litigation has even greater importance for smaller companies that derive much or all of their revenue from patent licensing: VirnetX (VHC) recently won a $368 million jury verdict against Apple and is scheduled to begin trial on the same patents in March against Cisco (CSCO). Intellectual property company Vringo (VRNG) - the focus on this article - prevailed against GOOG in November, obtaining a 3.5% royalty rate for past damages on two patents relating to search engine technology developed by Lycos, Inc in the 1990s. I have previously written about the VRNG vs. GOOG (a.k.a. I/P Engine v. AOL et al.) case here, here and here.
This article analyzes the post-trial motions in the VRNG v. GOOG case on the issue of damages, and the related requests for new trials. Briefing on these issues was completed last Friday, February 15. As an initial matter, it is clear from Google's latest filings that GOOG has not conceded to a running royalty, as some commenters previously suggested. GOOG devotes an entire section in its Reply to its argument that a running royalty is not appropriate. (Dkt. 894)
The parties' damages motions are meaningful to VRNG's valuation. VRNG, which has a $250 million market cap., is seeking to increase the jury verdict for past damages by approximately $100 million (its motion for future royalties would further increase the award by an even larger amount) through a request for a new trial on the limited issue of the dollar amount of past damages. (Dkt. 825) The dollar amount assigned to GOOG in the verdict form (reprinted below) does not equal 3.5% (the awarded rate) of any royalty base that was urged by VRNG or anyone else during trial. GOOG seeks a denial of all damages, or in the alternative a new trial on all issues. Because VRNG is such a small company, the outcome of these motions will likely have a significant impact on its share price.
Judge Jackson has a great deal of discretion in how to proceed. As a legal matter, the new trial requested by VRNG is authorized but not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons discussed below, however, I think the most likely outcome of the damages motions (although other motions are also pending) is that Judge Jackson will grant a new trial, and that the scope of the trial will be the dollar amount of past damages (i.e., question III.C. from the Jury Verdict form). This would be an excellent outcome for VRNG as it would give VRNG the chance to increase past damages without risking its wins in the other areas of the case.
The Facts
After each party had presented its case but before closing arguments, Judge Jackson held that laches applied to VRNG's claims against GOOG (for a discussion of the laches issue, see here). This decision eliminated six years of damages prior to the filing of the complaint in 2011. As a result, the Court was faced with the question of whether to have the jury determine damages for a new shortened period, or on the full period that was presented by both sides throughout trial, with judge adjusting any award as needed. The judge was initially inclined to do the latter:
(Trial Tr. at 1813). GOOG counsel successfully argued against this approach and Judge Jackson ultimately had the jury determine damages for the new, shortened period.
During deliberations, the jury asked four questions, three of which showed confusion over the damages period and the related calculation: 1. "Is there a date to use when considering the question of third party infringement;" 2. "If a royalty rate is determined, are we to apply the rate to a certain figure for each defendant;" and 3. "To what figure do we apply the rate." (Trial Tr. at 2141-2149) The Court answered yes to questions 1 and 2, and instructed the jury to use their memory of the evidence to determine the figure to apply to the rate.
The jury returned a verdict finding the patents valid and infringed, a 3.5% running royalty rate for past damages, and assigned a damages amount to each defendant. However, the verdict appears internally inconsistent on the damage amounts. Google, which had over 90% of the infringing revenue, only had a little over half of the awarded damages. Moreover, the damages amount assigned to GOOG does not line up with 3.5% of any amount that was argued or discussed during trial. In short, the numbers do not line up with themselves, the 3.5% royalty, or the evidence presented.
The award does make sense, however, if you move the decimal point for the Google damages number one place to the right, as VRNG shows in this table from its motion (825) and its opposition to Google's motion (Dkt. 871):
(click to enlarge)
The Parties' Current Positions
VRNG is seeking a new trial solely on dollar amount of past damages (Dkt. 825). Because the Court used a special jury verdict form with specific questions on the dollar amount of past damages, a new trial can be limited to this issue. The damages section of the verdict form follows:
(click to enlarge)
A new trial can therefore be limited to question III.C, leaving the liability, running royalty, and royalty rate issues in tact.
VRNG argued in its opening motion for a new damages trial (Dkt. 825 & 826) that a new trial should be granted because the verdict is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence. GOOG opposes VRNG's request, arguing that VRNG waived the ability to object to an internally inconsistent jury verdict by failing to object before the jury was dismissed, and that VRNG failed to provide adequate evidence to support a running royalty, a 3.5% royalty rate, or a damages base to which a royalty rate can be applied. Google seeks JMOL on these issues or alternatively argues for a new trial on numerous issues, including other damages issues and liability.
VRNG's reply does not address the waiver of an internally inconsistent verdict, but focuses on the argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. VRNG (correctly, I think) dismisses much of GOOG's damages argument as re-hashing issues that the judge and jury have already decided.
Analysis
As I mention above, I think that Judge Jackson will order a new trial, and that it will be limited to the issue of past damages. Both parties have argued in their damages motions that the jury did not have adequate information on the royalty base to which the royalty rate was applied. The reason for this is the application of the laches decision right before closing arguments. In the trial transcript, Judge Jackson was initially going to submit the entire damages period to the jury and apply laches later:
(Trial Tr. at 1813). GOOG counsel, however, convinced Judge Jackson to require VRNG to present the limited time to the jury. Even in accepting GOOG's argument, the Judge realized and commented twice that a new trial was possible as a result:
(Trial Tr. at 1814)
(Trial Tr. at 1892).
One of GOOG's main arguments against a new trial is that VRNG failed to present adequate damages evidence to the jury. GOOG also brought this up to the court during the laches discussion, but the Court thinks that there is adequate evidence in the record, even in light of GOOG's argument:
(Trial Tr. at 1964). GOOG repeating this argument in its briefs is unlikely to persuade the Court to deny VRNG all damages.
Additionally, the lack of evidence in the record that GOOG complains about is largely the result of GOOG fighting the introduction of damages evidence during the trial. The Court made clear, however, that if GOOG challenged the sufficiency of the evidence after getting it excluded, the Court was going to let VRNG put that evidence in the record:
(Trial Tr. at 828). GOOG now challenges the lack of specific damages evidence notwithstanding VRNG expert Dr. Becker's testimony - which itself is evidence. The Court's sentiments above are another reason that it may grant VRNG's motion and allow it to enter additional damages evidence.
If there is a new trial, the scope will be crucial. VRNG wants to limit a trial to past damages dollars only, to protect its wins on all the other issues; GOOG argues for re-trying the entire case so it can have a second shot. I see no need for the Judge to open the issues of liability, running royalty or royalty rate. Judge Jackson appears to be a very practical judge, and based on his comments in the trial and his decision on VRNG's laches JMOL before the briefing was even completed, it appears that he is not going to put up with more of the parties and their attorneys than he needs to. Therefore, if he is inclined to allow a new trial, I think it will be limited to what is needed to address the problem, which in this situation is the past damages amount. That would only require evidence regarding the royalty base for the period from October 2011 forward, and the application of the already-decided 3.5% royalty rate to that base. That said, opening the entire damages issue may be a reasonable solution as well, but GOOG is going for the whole trial, not just damages.
Conclusion
The current jury verdict on the dollar amount of GOOG's past damages is internally inconsistent in its current form, and is far lower than the 3.5% running royalty the jury awarded. Both sides have argued that the jury did not have the right information, and it is clear that the confusion stems in large part from the late laches ruling. The proper course would seem to be to fix the problem - which can be accomplished by a limited trial - rather than keeping an inconsistent verdict that appears to contain an error.
If there is a new trial on this issue, my guess is that VRNG will be able to establish a 20.9% royalty base, as GOOG's lump sum approach was rejected by the jury in question III.A (see above), and the experts will be limited to the expert reports submitted well before the trial. The ultimate result to VRNG could be the past damages being increased by nearly $100 million.
A note about the scope of this analysis: This analysis is limited to the motions discussed, and is without respect to issues such as GOOG's motions regarding invalidity (Dkt. 820) and infringement (Dkt. 831), which could add issues to a new trial if granted.
This article was sent to 5,892 people who get email alerts on VRNG.
Bring on the bear raid; looking to buy another 60,000 shares if it dips in the low 20's.
Anyone know how many more shares are left for "Mr. So-and-so" to exercise/sell?
Who in the world is this? Does anyone have any idea? He keeps showing up to sell 250,000 shares each time and a run is killed.
Who's going to do it? She stands ready for a huge run...needs only one rather substantial buyer and off she'll go! Wow, would I hate to be short right now!
Hold on folks; a couple more buy orders like the last one and this will be at .35 for the day before you know it.
.27! Appears this thing is going to take off!
Here comes some buys!
Also, lest anyone be scared out of their shares, the current drop is on low volume. Buy the dip.
Maybe we've already seen the "bear" raid and this is the beginning of the next leg up!
Hold on folks, as has been the case before major pops in the share price, the price is dropping. Whether this is due to manipulation or coincidence I cannot tell, but don't be surprised to find the price back up in the mid-3's soon after a fairly substantial drop. JMHO.
A new PR!
Vringo Extends Its Lawsuit Against ZTE in Germany with Additional Patent
33 minutes ago - Thomson Reuters ONE via Comtex
Trial Scheduled for September 24, 2013 on First Patent Vringo Asserted Against ZTE in Germany
NEW YORK - February, 21, 2013 - Vringo, Inc. (NYSE MKT: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of mobile technologies and intellectual property, today announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Vringo Germany GmbH, extended its patent infringement lawsuit against the ZTE Corp. China, and its German subsidiary, ZTE Deutschland GmbH (ZTE).
"This extension is another step in Vringo's continued enforcement of its intellectual property assets. We believe that ZTE is one of several large multinational telecom equipment companies that are currently infringing patents in our Telecommunications Infrastructure Portfolio," said Andrew D. Perlman, Chief Executive Officer of Vringo.
The pleading, filed in the District Court of Mannheim, alleges infringement of the German part of European Patent 1,186,119. Declarations have been filed at the European Telecommunications and Standards Institute (ETSI) that cover the patent. ZTE's accused devices are believed to fall within the scope of the patent. Vringo's complaint brief will be served on ZTE.
According to the complaint, Vringo is seeking injunctive relief, rendering of accounts, and damages.
"This case is part of Vringo's licensing and enforcement program. The asserted patent covers fundamental aspects of network operation, and is part of our telecom infrastructure portfolio," said David Cohen, Head of Litigation, Licensing and Intellectual Property at Vringo.
"Our lawsuit against ZTE was filed in Germany in November 2012. In the absence of an agreed settlement, trial on the first asserted patent is scheduled on September 24, 2013. Further enforcement actions may follow in due course against ZTE and other companies with products that we believe infringe our patents. As with all other unlicensed companies we believe infringe our patents, if ZTE does not agree to a license with us, then we will ask the court for appropriate relief," Mr. Cohen continued.
More and more I'm starting to think this thing will explode. Having done more DD, having explored the pre-Markman price movement of other companies, and having considered the low float of WDDD, this stock should experience significant price gains in the next 2 months. I've always thought it would increase, but I thought it would increase closer to the Markman. Now, I think it could increase dramatically within the next month. GLTA.
I wrote my last post simply to validate what Joe mentioned, that there might be a short raid which will shake out the remaining weak hands and ready us for a huge pop.
.22 x .23; 5000 shares traded.
Don't be afraid to send me a PM either!
Watching with eager anticipation...
I've been wondering the same for a couple weeks now. Makes me think JJ has pulled out of this stock.
Joe,
I certainly hope you're right. Yet it seems to me before such a rise in price can happen the guys dumping huge blocks of shares of this stock have to be bought out or stop selling.
This is why I mentioned a while back that there may be lower levels at which people can enter (low .02's or high teens). For reasons I know not, there are some rather large investors who want out. Until these guys are weeded out the stock is going to have a hard time going anywhere. Hopefully they run out of shares soon because whoever is dumping 50,000 to 100,000 shares at a time is making it hard for this thing to run...it kills investor confidence.
Thanks for the information guys; very helpful.
This assumes the buys will roll in. Volume has dried up. Hope this wasn't a one-day wonder. Slow, organic growth is always much better than hard-hitting growth; hard-hitting days like yesterday leave the stock used and abused.
Who has 250,000 shares on the "Ask"?
Running Bull,
Investor interest here is driven by the conviction that there is a high likelihood of the Markman hearing leading to a trial in which WDDD would receive from Activision a substantial sum of money for the intellectual property WDDD owns.
VRNG is very little different at this point: they have no revenue streams yet investors have invested substantially because they are convinced there is a high likelihood Judge Jackson will rule in favor of VRNG, requiring Google to pay them a substantial sum of money for the intellectual property VRNG owns.
Why is this at .25? Investor interest. If more investors become more interested the price will go up; if investors become less interested the price will drop. Apparently investors, and myself included, believe there is a rather good change WDDD's case will go to court and result favorably for them.
Tink
Great day here folks. Any close in the green is a good one. Remember what I said about gradual increases: 3-7% increase/week is a good stock. That is what I think we see here for the next mtonth or so before larger breakouts as we draw closer to June 27. If we break into the low .03's anytime in March, and the high .03's and low .04's in late March and early April, then this thing will be well poised to break out prior to Markman. GLTA.
If this is a panic sell, which it appears to be, then tomorrow will be a rather huge day, maybe even a gapper. Once people have had a night to sleep on it, and realize nothing changed, they buy back in and stop selling.
For those interested in making a quick buck, once the panic sellers stop selling this thing should head right back up. For those panicking, there has been no bad news here. Hold your shares and you'll probably be able to sell them right where you bought them, back up in the .014's and .015's.
When this thing bounces up someone's going to make a LOT of money! THis thing is poised to hit .014 easily, maybe even reach .015