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.
It is the last day for 3rd party discovery. I don't believe that Z has anything left to produce. The next deadline for both parties is:
Dec 22nd, 2015: ZTE (SDNY) – Opening expert reports to be served by the party bearing the burden of proof on each issue (Doc 278 & 280)
Docket 15-69 WoC has been scheduled for conference on November 24th, 2015. I would expect to see it on the Order List on Monday, the 30th of November. Good luck!
R/
V24
Nothing new on your case yet (15-69). I will continue to monitor it and will let you know when I see something.
R/
V24
Excellent questions! Should have asked them with your initial post. Now I get your point. Also, when the powermat contract w/Starbucks expires, fliCharge needs to step in and replace them. Could happen! Stay the course!!
Not only different technology, but Powermat uses inductive charging which has already been proven to be inferior to conductive charging which is what fliCharge uses.
See link for differences:
http://www.flicharge.com/pages/technology
Why would that be an issue? When something is released into the Public Domain, it becomes free and available for anyone to use without charge. We certainly don't want that to happen. We own the patent and if you want to use it, you have to license it. NOT AN ISSUE.
Doc 9 fm SDNY (QS v D/A) dtd 29Oct. Summons served on D/A 23Oct. D/A has 21 days to respond (13Nov). Doc 9 posted in section 1 of blog:
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
I felt the same way. Heck, I even drafted up an excel spreadsheet listing the pros and cons of our WoC and it weighed heavily on the pro side. Still hoping DB & Co have an Ace in the hole or up their sleeve and we see a request for a rehearing. And if not, well, it is what it is. GLTAL!
That case has not been "Distributed for Conference" yet. Once it has been scheduled, the date will show up on the docket. I do not see it being "Distributed for Conference" until either 6 or 13Nov with an "order list" date of the 9th or the 16th. These are simply guesses on my part, but the dates I have provided you with are the earliest ones that are possible. I will be more than happy to track the case for you and let you know when something more concrete shows up.
Best of luck to you.
R/
V24
Doc 284 & 284-1: V req 3rd party discovery extension for Edelman to 5Nov2015. See Section 1 of blog for docs:
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
Quantum Stream lawsuit against DirecTV SDNY docs are all in Section 1 of the blog:
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
Doc 283: Emergency Motion from V to K to compel Z comms w/G and other 3rd parties. Posted in section 1 of blog:
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
K approved V's request for the Expert Discovery extensions. Doc 280 posted in section 1 of the blog:
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
VRINGO ACQUIRES WIRE-FREE CHARGING AND RUGGED COMPUTING COMPANY INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP
http://stocknewsnow.com/companynews/79907313/VRNG/101843
Maybe Boies and Company can use this case as a reference to support a rehearing request for our WoC.
Just posted doc 279, 279-1 (Exh A), and 279-2 (Exh B) from Z to section 1 of the blog:
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
Doc 278: V requests extension of Expert Discovery deadlines. See Section 1 of blog for full doc info.
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
Doc 277: Results of todays TelCon in SDNY posted in Section 1 of the blog.
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
Here is a case in which a denial was reheard, then issued a GVR by SCOTUS. It is not impossible!
http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/11-438.htm
It is not costing us anything. V either submits their request or they don't. But don't act like they don't have a choice to do so.
The words "at this point" play a critical role in his statement. Vringo has 24 days to find another case that has a substantial relationship to ours that was not originally referenced. If Vringo was not aware of the Rule 44, he would not have used "at this point", he would have simply stated that "all options have been exhausted and this is over" or similar words.
R/
V24
Vringo has 24 days in which something "substantial" can happen in any case that has a bearing on ours. Management may have meant that "as of yesterday", we were toast and have done everything. But future events can not be discounted. If we see nothing after 24 days, then I will freely admit that the G case is done and buried.
Judge Maas is the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case under Judge Kaplan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge
We saw the letter weeks ago. That meant nothing to the court. ZTE needed to submit a formal request which they did in order for the court to take any action. This is important info and not something to be ignored.
Doc 276 from SDNY: ZTE is withdrawing their demand for a jury trial. See section 1 of the blog:
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
This is Z's formal request. See docs 254 and 263 for more info.
My point was from Googles perspective. They would want to settle and not go all the way if V is dealing from a position of strength and not weakness.
Obviously, V would not want to settle and take the max amount possible from G.
It may depend on two things:
1. Where V sits financially
2. Where V sits litigation wise with Z
If V is golden as a result of Z and is perfectly capable of fighting a long extended battle with G, then yes, G may settle rather than take a black eye. But that would only be based on items 1 and 2 (IMHO).
If V is hurting badly in 1 and 2, G may decide to buy V a ticket on the train to BKville and stretch this thing out. Again, IMHO.
True, but I don't think Google cares. They will take this all the way to the very end to discourage what they term "patent trolls". Google wants to show others that even if they win, they better be able to fight a sustained and expensive battle if they expect to get paid. This is also an inadvertent part of Z's countermeasure battle against Vringo. Don't think for a moment that Z is not watching this case very closely and considering its impact on the current litigation.
Google would probably file an En Banc request with CAFC before the WoC in yet another attempt as part of their delay strategy.
It doesn't. Distributed for Conference does not mean it is on the discuss list. SCOTUS does not have time to discuss every WoC that is submitted. That is the entire point of the "pre-review committee". They are the ones who deem it important enough to be placed on the "Discuss List" for SCOTUS to review. If the "pre-review committee" does not place it on the "discuss list", then it will be denied by virtue of that decision, and most likely placed on the Order List the following Monday (or Tuesday if Mon is a holiday). If it is fortunate enough to be placed on the discuss list, then SCOTUS will review it and make a decision which will then (most likely) be placed on the order list as well.
This is all IMHO of course, and based on my own DD. I share what I can with others and it is all subject/open to interpretation.
Order list from SCOTUS dated 1Oct is out. We are not on it.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100115zr_o759.pdf
Please read pages 4 - 6 of this link. It will help.
https://www.citizen.org/documents/OpposingCertGuide.pdf
Doc 275 is out. Kaplan approved discovery date extension.
https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/275.png
Grayling also included in discovery extension request.
Doc 274: V request discovery deadline extension until 23Oct. Extension requested for Edelman and Google. See blog section 1 for details.
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
If our WoC does not make the "discuss list", then it is denied by default and will be on the "order list" is how I read it.
Vringo's WoC was scheduled for Conference on 28Sept per the docket.
"DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015."
Link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-1358.htm
Expect Order List around 9:30 AM this Monday based on this paragraph:
"In most cases, the disposition of a petition discussed at a particular Conference will be announced in an order list that is issued at 9:30 am on the Monday after that Conference."
In this case, the conference happened on 28Sept with the next Monday being the 5th of October.
Link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx
OK, please look at the SCOTUS Blog calendar for October of 2014.
Link: http://www.scotusblog.com/events/2014-10/
They do not show "Orders" for October 6th, yet SCOTUS released an 89 page PDF Order List on that very date.
Link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100614zor.pdf
-------------------------
Also look at the SCOTUS Blog calendar for October of 2013.
Link: http://www.scotusblog.com/events/2013-10/
They do not show "Orders" for October 7th, yet SCOTUS released a 94 page PDF Order List on that very date.
Link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100713zor_5436.pdf
---------------------------
If I am wrong about the Order List coming out this coming Monday based on the 28Sept "long" conference, I will gladly eat crow
Regards,
VRNG24
TelCon rescheduled from 10 AM 29Sept to 3 PM 7Oct per doc 273 out of SDNY. Refer to Section 1 of the blog.
Link: https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/