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.
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
So is it true that the reverse split didn't pass but everything else did including rewarding management with even more stock for their unparalleled achievements in value destruction?
Plus they paid a 2 cent premium -- somebody wanted in -- & in a hurry!
Long article from New York Law Journal with lots of Kaplan quotes--all good!
Cutting & pasting here so you don't need to sign up for a subscription:
Chinese GC Ordered to US for Deposition in Patent Case
Mark Hamblett
08/17/2015
Text Size
Share Article
A federal judge has ordered the general counsel of a Chinese corporation to come to the United States for a deposition in a patent case, despite the attorney's fear he will be arrested upon entering the country.
Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan instructed attorney Guo Xiaoming of the China-based ZTE Corporation to be deposed in Kaplan's courtroom in Vringo v. ZTE Corporation, 14-cv-4988.
Guo's attorneys at Clifford Chance US had asked Kaplan for "mercy" and to at least allow his deposition to take place outside of the United States because he feared a possible arrest by U.S. authorities in a criminal investigation into a violation of the embargo against the Iranian regime.
In the litigation before Kaplan, Vringo claims ZTE has for years been selling telecommunications covered by Vringo's patents, that ZTE wrongly sued Vringo both in China and before the European Commission, and that ZTE prompted a Chinese government entity to pursue charges of anticompetitive behavior.
At issue in the litigation is the alleged violation of a nondisclosure agreement that the parties had signed during unsuccessful settlement talks.
The judge said the parties disputed Guo's precise role, but "there is no real doubt that he was involved in a supervisory capacity and considerable reason to suspect that he was at least one of the architects of ZTE's tactics and strategy."
"At the very least, it is clear from emails sent or received by Mr. Guo that he knew and approved of ZTE's plan to 'forc[e]' Vringo to settle by 'making war' over what ZTE characterized as Vringo's refusal to resolve the dispute between the companies at a 'reasonable price'," he said.
And the judge noted Guo is a member of the Shenzen Municipality People's Congress, which has supervisory authority over the court where ZTE sued Vringo, so "Vringo quite reasonably sought to take his deposition."
Kaplan had ordered on July 24 that Guo be deposed in the United States, but it was not until Aug. 5, when ZTE moved for reconsideration, that it first revealed to the court the existence of an FBI and Department of Commerce investigation into unauthorized exports of U.S.-origin equipment to embargoed countries, including Iran.
In a letter signed by Jeff Butler, partner at Clifford Chance, the firm handling the criminal investigation for ZTE, the company no longer claimed Guo's deposition in the U.S. would be disruptive. Instead, Butler said, "I believe that Guo Xiaoming would almost certainly be questioned, subjected to a border search, served with a grand jury subpoena to appear, or worse, be detained in connection with the investigation."
If Kaplan would not entertain this plea for "mercy" in its motion to reconsider, Butler and the legal team said the motion should serve as notice that ZTE is unable to comply and "regrettably" was expecting to be sanctioned. But Kaplan said the company had failed to present new facts, issues or arguments that would warrant reconsideration.
"The facts concerning the federal criminal investigation and the concern that Mr. Guo would be detained and questioned, if not more, were well known to ZTE," the judge said. "Indeed, the lengths to which it went to avoid the deposition entirely, or failing that, to have it take place in Hong Kong, reinforce that conclusion."
The judge said Clifford Chance had reason to believe there might be sealed indictments or outstanding arrest warrants, including for Guo, and that "ZTE obviously instructed its lead counsel in this [patent] litigation [King & Spalding] to seek to avoid Mr. Guo being deposed at all," or at least be deposed outside of the United States.
"Yet it litigated two motions to compel in this court on those very issues without ever once informing the court of the criminal investigation or of its concerns with respect to Mr. Guo coming to this country," he said. "It thus put both the court and its adversary to considerable burden for reasons that were never disclosed."
Kaplan continued: "In light of ZTE's lack of candor and its stalling and game playing with respect to the Guo deposition in the months prior to the present, ZTE has no claim on the favorable exercise of the court's discretion."
The judge said he tended to agree with the view that "even the pendency of criminal charges against a deposition witness in a criminal case should not excuse the witness from appearing in the United States for a deposition in a civil case where that otherwise would be appropriate."
Regardless, Kaplan said there was a strong case for having Guo deposed here, particularly when there have already been "substantial problems in the conduct of discovery against ZTE."
He declined to consider sanctions at this time, saying that "ZTE and Mr. Guo may reconsider their position in light of this ruling."
The attorneys for Vringo are Alston & Bird partners Karl Geercken, Amber Wessels-Yen and Mark McCarty.
In addition to Butler, the attorneys for ZTE are John Alexander, associate at Clifford Chance US; Robert Perry and Paul Straus, partners, and David Joffe, senior associate, of King & Spalding; Jeffrey Catalano, associate at Brinks Gilson & Lione in Chicago; and Charles McMahon and Jay Reiziss, partners, and Brian Jones, associate, at McDermott Will & Emery.
Signed--tho please note that this will only be meaningful if everyone who signs can convince 100
friends to sign it!
JJ: thanks as always for your knowledge, erudition & sense of humor!
I totally get what you're saying & do feel like I've been run over twice by Google.
That said it's a fantasy of mine (perhaps stupid--we'll see) that while there's no legal connection between the two "accidents" there may be a business connection in that Google now has more of an incentive to settle--so my real hope is that Ken Lang (who is brilliant) will invent something meaningful enough that Google can credibly buy VRNG for a few billion without incurring the wrath of their shareholders (or anyone else) and then maybe get 1/2 their money back from ZTE? They probably bought Nest for $3.2 bn in part to get Tony Fadell & Matt Rogers in the house--& of course monetize their brilliant technology--but I'm sure they'll be working on other stuff as well sooner or later!
Very interesting point. JJ you'll probably think this is ridiculous but had to ask: could it be possible that Google paused for a moment before submitting their response to the Supreme Court, because if they DO reply then VRNG can reply to their reply & introduce some of this new ZTE news into the discussion? Whereas if they don't reply VRNG will not have the opportunity to do so? Or is that just ignorant crazy talk?
Hmmm. This does not look good for us.
Tho funny to see google getting the NPE treatment ;)
Could be ongoing positive response to the Seeking Alpha story yesterday.
Could also be speculation that ZTE will not meet the SDNY deadlines today & get spanked in some way that is good for us.
SP now has a few bids at 50c after hours & has recovered most of the latest big dump
down which briefly dropped us into the high 30 cent zone. Do we really think that ZTE has been freaked out of shorting the stock? Or is this just smart buyers starting to come in as they sense the value in VRNG right now?
PS: for anyone interested Etrade has just re-posted the VRNG quarterly earnings date as August 6th.
I stand corrected (& well advised) thanks JJ
The 1/4erly numbers (& mgt confidence) are critical to VRNG insofar as the stock becomes 10x+ more valuable if ZTE & GOOG even suspect that there may be enough financing & enough resolve to see this through--because that's when they come to the table!
Did Perlman cut his million $ salary back to reasonable proportions yet?
Can the legal fees be renegotiated?
Sending out some serious burn rate reduction messages will also make a huge difference.
As of this morning etrade removed their entry (7/28) from the quarterly "guess when VRNG will report earnings" contest. Perhaps VRNG will let us know, when the time is right?
JJ: Etrade lists VRNG earnings as July 28 at 4pm--I was sloppily relying on that.
However the VRNG website does not offer a date at all.
While other sites list August 5 (I imagine based on the same info you have).
My apologies for unintentionally exacerbating the pointless confusion that VRNG initiates by not informing their investors of ANY upcoming events on their upcoming events calendar page.
They have also not informed Zacks or Nasdaq of their earnings date--as indicated here: http://www.nasdaq.com/earnings/report/vrng
Meanwhile the stock jumps to .48 (~+10%) on low volume & VRNG quarterly "earnings" are supposedly tomorrow.
Any other news event(s) expected?
To JJ, re "(disclosure – I am co-counsel with different lawyers from ZTE’s outside law firm on a separate patent infringement matter)":
the drafting is a little convoluted but, when read more carefully than it deserves, it actually seems to be saying that the blog poster is co counsel with zte's outside law firm on a SEPARATE (my emphasis -- & meaning "separate from/not connected with zte) patent infringement matter.
ie he may be taking some personal pleasure in the legal obduracy & ineptitude, but he & his firm have nothing to do with zte.
You're right long-vestor.
That chart is butt-ugly.
The ONLY possibly redeeming feature is that volume is veryow at the breach of your triple bottom.
There was a swift recovery yesterday--we'll see if that happens again...
Fantastic support for VRNG scotus appeal
here: http://stks.co/p2RYG
h/t Kevin Porter on seeking alpha
Stock is in the bargain bin today.
Couldn't resist a small buy at 0.5351.
VRNG declines heavily on positive German patent court news--anyone know why?
http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl
VRINGO ANNOUNCES FAVORABLE RULING REGARDING PATENT VALIDITY IN GERMAN PATENTS COURT
Validity Upheld on Amended 3G Infrastructure Claims
NEW YORK - July 6, 2015 - Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that the German Patents Court has issued a ruling on the validity of the German part of European Patent 1,212,919 (the "'919 Patent"), owned by Vringo's wholly-owned subsidiary Vringo Infrastructure, Inc.
The Court, following a hearing held on March 4, 2015, held that the '919 Patent claims that read on handover between radio network controllers, a key part of 3G infrastructure technology, were held valid as amended.
Vringo's infringement claims against ZTE on the '919 Patent alleging infringement of ZTE's 3G and 4G infrastructure equipment are pending before the Düsseldorf Regional Court, where they are scheduled to be heard on February 25, 2016. In Germany, damages are calculable from one month after the publication of the grant of the patent, which, in the case of the '919 Patent, was October 8, 2010. ZTE entered the European market in 2002 and has had a substantial presence in Germany for many years.
"We are pleased with the claims that were held valid by the German Patents Court and look forward to the hearing on infringement of these claims in the first quarter of next year," said David Cohen, Vringo's Chief Legal and Intellectual Property Officer.
The '919 Patent is the German counterpart of the patent previously found by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court in the United Kingdom to be infringed by ZTE and valid as amended. In the UK ZTE has forfeited its right to appeal. The '919 Patent is also the German counterpart of the patent found, prima facie, infringed by ZTE in Brazil, where the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro has issued an ex-parte preliminary injunction against ZTE, which remains in place pending trial on the merits. To date ZTE has attempted to have the injunction in Brazil lifted seven times, all of their attempts have been rejected by numerous courts.
About Vringo, Inc.
Vringo, Inc. is engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property and mobile technologies. Vringo's intellectual property portfolio consists of over 600 patents and patent applications covering telecom infrastructure, internet search, and mobile technologies. The patents and patent applications have been developed internally, and acquired from third parties. For more information, visit:www.vringo.com.
Perhaps a good omen for VRNG: Oracle wins in the Supreme Court after Google tries to claim that the district court is wrong and their stealing 7000 lines of code was simply "fair use".
http://www.jdjournal.com/2015/06/30/google-and-oracle-fight-over-use-of-code-lines/
My apologies if someone else has already posted this, but it does seem to contradict claims that Google "owns" the Supreme Court based on their political contributions?!
Pretty minuscule volume,
but definitely the way one would want VRNG to close before the weekend!
Anyone aware of any potentially market moving news next week?
Thank you!
A lot of people are talking about dilution. Yet the stock is still trading above its closing price after hours.
It's always disconcerting to see potentially negative news released after hours on a Friday.
However I would argue that a $50 million warchest is a "shock & awe" positive for the stock, granted that ZTE & GOOG have been trying to starve VRNG into submission!
I personally are today as very positive indeed for VRNG.
Clearly anyone wanting to buy in volume was waiting for the Russell selling.
Normally volume this high with no buyers would have pushed the stock down below 40-50c.
Good to see there were willing buyers who will be stable shareholders going forward--and good to see that the "bid" is above the market close which bodes well for next week ;)
How do we feel about Teva latest?
Patent Lawyers See Slow Shift on Claim Construction
Scott Graham
06/18/2015
The U.S. Supreme Court's January decision in Teva v. Sandoz ordering more deference to trial judges on claim construction was expected to have a big impact on patent litigation.
But some academics questioned how much the decision—which requires the Federal Circuit to review factual findings for clear error but still allows independent review of legal conclusions—would actually change outcomes on appeal.
There will be no change for Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Sandoz Inc., at least. On Thursday, the Federal Circuit ruled on remand from the Supreme Court that, even under the more deferential standard of review, U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones of New York had erred in construing the phrase "molecular weight," and that Teva's patent claims on the manufacturing of Copaxone are invalid for indefiniteness.
Judge Kimberly Moore wrote for a 2-1 majority that Teva remains stuck with the fact that it offered two separate definitions of "molecular weight" while prosecuting related patents. Expert testimony at claim construction, no matter how deferentially viewed, doesn't negate that, she held. "Teva cannot transform legal analysis about the meaning or significance of the intrinsic evidence into a factual question simply by having an expert testify on it," she wrote.
Judge Haldane Mayer dissented, saying Moore and colleague Evan Wallach should defer to Jones' conclusion that Teva had made an honest mistake during prosecution. He accused the majority of "embarking on an independent review of the record and then considering, as an afterthought, the important and carefully considered factual findings made by the trial court."
Jason Rantanen, a University of Iowa College of Law professor and co-author of the Patently-O blog, observed three months ago that the Federal Circuit is continuing to exercise dominance over claim construction notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision. Thursday's decision reinforces that outlook, though he noted that earlier this week Wallach took a different approach in a nonprecedential opinion. In that case Wallach deferred to the district judge on technical terms, then concluded that the intrinsic evidence did not alter that meaning.
"That's an approach that's certainly different than the 'intrinsic-first' approach that characterizes most of the court's post- Teva claim-construction opinions," he said in an email. Along with Mayer's dissent it could signal some cracks in the court's framework for reviewing claim construction.
Berkeley solo Andrew Dhuey, who's been litigating the standard of review issue for the last two years in Lighting Ballast Control v. Philips Electronics, said he expected Teva to have a bigger impact at the Federal Circuit than it has. But he noted that trial attorneys and judges only recently began emphasizing fact finding at claim construction in hopes of earning more deference on appeal. When those cases start reaching the Federal Circuit, more deferential decisions may be in the offing, he said.
But Paul Berghoff of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, who filed an amicus curiae brief for the Intellectual Property Owners Association at the Supreme Court in Teva, said whatever initial enthusiasm there may have been for claim-construction fact finding could peter out if the Federal Circuit stays the course. Fact finding takes time, a district judge's most precious commodity, he said.
Morrison & Foerster partner Deanne Maynard and Perkins Coie partner Shannon Bloodworth led the winning team for Sandoz, and Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc., Myland Pharmaceuticals and Natco Pharma Ltd. at the Federal Circuit, with help from Cravath, Swaine & Moore.
Goodwin Procter represented Teva.
Contact the reporter at sgraham@alm.com.
Fascinating. Thanks for posting! It will be interesting to see if ZTE pays up or stonewalls. And, if the latter, to see what the court does to enforce the judgement. If anyone has full access please can you cut & paste the whole story here?
Thanks--that is good to hear--is that everyone's pov re the appeals court info in my original post #58483?
Appreciate the help in getting my head around this!
latest U.S. appeals court en banc determination: jj seabrook or other peeps more knowledgeable than me--does this apply to vrng? (have cut & pasted this from "the recorder" for those who don't have an account there)
Federal Circuit Tightens Squeeze on Software Patents
Scott Graham
06/16/2015
Text Size
Share Article
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has completed its one-two punchagainst vaguely worded means-plus-function patent claims.
Sitting en banc, the court ruled that patent claims expressed in terms of functionality will be subject to statutory requirements for means-plus-function claims, even if they substitute phrases such as "a mechanism for" or "a device for" in place of "a means for."
Section 112(f) of the Patent Act requires that means-plus-function claims spell out corresponding structure in the claim specification. The Federal Circuit just ruled last month that for software, that means disclosing an algorithm.
Stanford law professor Mark Lemley, who contributed an amicus curiae brief for a group of law professors, said Tuesday's decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, is big for software patents. "There are a lot of functionally written patent claims that use words like 'module' or 'mechanism,' and those claims are now likely to be limited to the algorithm disclosed in the specification plus its equivalents—or held invalid if, like the patentee here, they never built or disclosed an algorithm at all," said Lemley, a partner at Durie Tangri, in an email.
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff partner Brad Hulbert said the ruling opens the door for a second avenue of attack on software patents following last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision on patent eligibility in Alice v. CLS Bank. Accused infringers will likely argue that "even if the claims are directed to eligible subject matter, they're very narrow." That's unfortunate for patent holders who relied on the Federal Circuit's long-standing means-plus-function jurisprudence, said Hulbert, who was not involved in the case.
For the last decade, the Federal Circuit had held there is a "strong presumption" against imposing the 112(f) means-plus-function requirement when claims do not use the word "means." As recently as last year's decision in Apple v. Motorola Mobility, the court had noted that the presumption is "seldom" overcome. But Chief Judge Sharon Prost dissented in the Apple case, and Judge Jimmie Reyna added his voice last fall in Williamson, a case that involves patents on virtual classrooms.
The dispute is over the phrase "a distributed learning control module" for receiving and relaying communications between presenters and audience members. A 2-1 majority ruled that a person skilled in the art would understand what was being claimed. But Reyna wrote that "module" was being used as a "nonce word"—a verbal construct that referred to unspecified computer-implemented functions. Because those functions weren't spelled out in the specification, the claim was invalid for indefiniteness, he argued.
On Tuesday, the en banc court mostly agreed with Reyna. It took the unusual step of reissuing just the portion of last fall's panel opinion addressing means-plus-function claims, with limited briefing and no additional oral argument.
Describing the presumption as "strong"—instead of an ordinary rebuttable presumption—had placed "a thumb on what should otherwise be a balanced analytical scale," Judge Richard Linn wrote. It had "resulted in a proliferation of functional claiming untethered to Section 112[f]."
Reyna concurred in the result, but said he would do away with the burden-shifting analysis altogether. "The continued viability of this rationale, and its impact on how this court applies Section 112[f] merits attention," he wrote.
Judge Pauline Newman was the lone dissenter. She said it should be the applicant's choice whether to invoke Section 112(f) by using the word means. Now, she said, litigants, patent examiners and district judges will have to guess whether a claim is means-plus-function until the Federal Circuit tells them.
Lemley said the Federal Circuit judges have used the limited en banc procedure in the past. "The fact that the decision was 11-1 may help explain why" they did Tuesday. "The rule change they made wasn't that controversial on the court."
Fish & Richardson partner Kurt Glitzenstein argued the appeal for Citrix Systems, Microsoft Corp., Adobe Systems Inc. and the other co-defendants. Baker Botts contributed on the briefs for Cisco Systems Inc. while Goodwin Procter represented International Business Machines Corp. Daniel Nazer filed an amicus curiae brief for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
O'Melveny & Myers partner Brett Johnston Williamson argued for Richard Williamson, trustee of the At Home Corp. bondholders' liquidating trust.
Contact the reporter at sgraham@alm.com.
Is this "enjoinment" of any meaning or value other than symbolic, granted that, as I understand it, ZTE has already publicly posted confidential vrng info in China?
Anyone know why this dumped
down again?
Someone sold it down 10% in a hurry into the close.
Now looks weird: rtq shows vrng is bid at only 1c.
Even though there's actually a bid of 61c on edgx.
So far someone seems happy to buy what's offered at 61c.
Which hardly proves bad news is on the way.
Though I remember seeing sellers front run the google cafc driven
collapse from over $3--which is not a great memory....
EDIT: rtq corrected itself. though the seller took all the 61c there was, & bid is now 60c.
Agree ruling is hugely positive.
Would be hard to prove NDA damages before VRNG has actually demonstrated that it's possible to win a case on the merits of the patents themselves. Right now VRNG hasnt been awarded a dime so the disadvantage to VRNG + benefits to other patent violators of ZTE revealing the NDA info are arguably not yet apparent.
Thanks red angus--my perception is that judges want disputing parties to settle rather than carry on disputing for ever. Tho I admit I'm not super knowledgeable about patent law disputes per se. But why wouldn't tHt be the case here?
Is there any downside to the denial of vrng claim for "unfair competition" by zte or is this a complete home run victory? Will there be a separate damages award for breach of the NDA or is the judge simply using the prospect of such an award to convince zte to negotiate. frand agreement?
thanks!
Thanks Snooze. Interesting--& a very good point re QCOM. Perhaps the larger point still is that any strategic investor that enabled VRNG to strengthen their balance sheet to "fortress levels" would instantly increase the valuation of the company substantially (thereby booking a large profit on their investment immediately) by removing the "bankruptcy fear factor" from the stock price.
Thanks for posting, LaddyMan. This story seemed so absurd I thought it might have been designed especially for April Fools Day. After some "googling" it's clearly true, and it would seem to be a strategy of ZTE to scare VRNG into accepting a low-ball settlement in fear of bankruptcy at the hands of NDRC.
Clearly it worked by virtue of scaring up a handful of stock sales this afternoon but I'm wondering whether it might end up backfiring on ZTE by pissing off some people into helping VRNG out.
eg Judge Kaplan who may become more pissed with ZTE's flagrant NDA violation than he already is, & act accordingly.
Perhaps even Nokia, who may feel that so long as VRNG is down to the last 12-18 months of runway from a burn-rate standpoint, there will be too great of a temptation for ZTE to continue to pull stunts like this. Now could be a really great time for Nokia to take this off the table by making a substantial loan to VRNG as a sign that these ZTE "strategies" not only won't work to bankrupt or even to horrendously dilute VRNG equity, but will actually end up costing them more in the long run.
Perhaps there are other ways ZTE's behavour could backfire on them? thoughts, anyone?
VRNG seemed to shoot up on relatively high volume (approx 600,000 shares) but then came crashing down on relatively low volume (at most 200,000 shares). Price jump looked like real buying but there was simply no follow through...
What just happened? Big jump in price/volume. D-Link feels too minor to be the cause & too much of a delayed reaction...
They are still claiming earnings release is today on their website:
http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/events.pl
The big challenge for VRNG is that bribery is standard operating procedure at ZTE, which means that progress will be slow to non existent in countries where that is the norm. Only hope in China is if ZTE goes so far in alienating govt as to be cut loose as an "example" to others. Seems like we're still a long way from that? Thoughts anyone?
Interesting. I doubt that ZTE will find it as easy to "influence" US court decision makers as the way that they manage things in china... perhaps that is why VRNG is up rather than down today?
Another stupefyingly slow day for VRNG, in the face of so many potentially positive catalysts. Got filled on another 6000 (that I wasn't expecting to own) at .7251 - literally as the closing bell was ringing. Meanwhile liking my market index etf shorts a lot. Will continue to leg into VRNG with profits from there.
thanks going_green.
it gets more interesting.
the tone of vrng price action seems to be improving.
perhaps less fear of an earnings related sell off/some more short covering as likely positive news exceeds the negatives, going forward.