is... buying more shares
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.
For future reference, you can create a free trial account for 7 days to view an article. It only requires an email address (but not a free email like from yahoo/hotmail/gmail/etc).
Volkswagen, Bentley Slam Signal IP's Safety Patent Claims
By Lisa Ryan
Law360, New York (October 07, 2014, 3:36 PM ET) -- Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Bentley Motors Inc. on Monday fired back at Signal IP’s car safety patent infringement suit in California federal court, urging the judge to declare the automakers haven’t ripped off the safety technology and that the patents asserted in the suit are invalid.
The car giants slapped a counterclaim against Signal, a subsidiary of patent acquisition and monetization firm Marathon Patent Group Inc., in the dispute accusing Volkswagen and Bentley of infringing six patents, including one for a method for determining whether to deploy an air bag based on the direction an infant is facing and another for a radar system that detects objects in drivers’ blind spots.
“[Volkswagen] and Bentley are not infringing, and have not infringed, the ’927, ’375, ’486, ’601, ’007 and ’775 patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,” the counterclaim said.
In April, Signal filed suit against the automakers, and also hit Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC, Fiat USA Inc., Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and more with similar suits, accusing the car giants of ripping off combinations of seven of Signal’s vehicle safety patents.
Volkswagen and Bentley allegedly infringed the radar and air bag patents, in addition to patents related to technology used in the automakers' cruise control, collision warning and keyless entry systems. Another patent describes a method for when to use electric power in a hybrid vehicle, according to the complaint.
The automakers asked the judge to toss the willful infringement claims in July, but Signal argued that it never even made a claim for pre-suit infringement, and also told the court that it has sufficiently pled post-suit willful infringement based on the automakers' knowledge of the patents-in-suit from at least the filing of the complaint.
Two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt granted the automakers’ July bid to toss the pre-suit and post-suit willful infringement claims, saying it “only pleads post-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. Further, plaintiff has not sought a preliminary injunction. Under these circumstances, a claim for willfulness may not be maintained.”
And in their Monday filing, Volkswagen and Bentley asked the judge to declare that they have not infringed the patents, and also argued that the patents are actually invalid because Delphi Technologies, the previous holder of the patents, signed a patent purchase agreement releasing its customers from any liability of infringement over the patents in October 2013.
Representatives for Signal declined to comment, and counsel for the automakers didn’t respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.
Signal is represented by Randall J. Sunshine, Ryan E. Hatch and Jason L. Haas of Liner LLP.
The automakers are represented by Ryan K. Yagura and Kevin Murray of O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Michael J. Lennon, Michael N. Zachary and Susan A. Smith of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 5,714,927; 5,732,375; 5,954,775; 6,434,486; 6,775,601; and 6,012,007.
The suit is Signal IP Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et al., case number 2:14-cv-03113, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
--Editing by Stephen Berg.
it's difficult to give a multiple on revenues that may not be duplicated...
we don't know exactly where the bulk of the 13.5 million comes from...
but that being said, it sure seems likely that MARA will continue to grow revenues, will continue to acquire the most attractive monetizable patent portfolios, and will continue to increase shareholder equity
Oh my!!!!!
Such fantastic news, and such a fantastic disclosure to start the week.
Here is the full article for which you seek:
http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Vringo+%28VRNG%29+Updates+on+Recent+RSU+Conversions,+Sales/9884157.html
Vringo (VRNG) Updates on Recent RSU Conversions, Sales
October 3, 2014 8:04 AM EDT
In July 2012 and February 2013, Vringo (Nasdaq: VRNG) granted restricted stock units to certain of Vringo's officers and directors pursuant to Vringo's 2012 Equity Incentive Plan. Portions of these restricted stock units vest on a quarterly basis, resulting in income tax liabilities for such officers and directors. The proceeds from stock sales made by such officers and directors following vesting are used to pay the income tax liabilities associated with the vesting of the restricted stock units. Certain of Vringo's officers and directors made such sales on September 30, 2014.
These stock sales were effected pursuant to pre-existing trading plans established pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 and were reported on Forms 4, which were filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").
As used here, the term "Rule 10b5-1" refers to an SEC rule under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that enables company officers and directors to enter into plans at times when such persons do not have any material, non-public information concerning the issuer. The plans were put in place by such persons to sell a pre-specified number of restricted stock units on the applicable vesting dates of the restricted stock units. Vringo believes it is a common practice for insiders to sell shares on regular intervals to pay the income tax associated with the vesting of the restricted stock units. The stock sales are completed in a systematic, nondiscretionary manner with the goal of minimal market impact, and compliance with federal securities laws and regulations adopted by the SEC.
Related SEC filings:
Form 8-K Vringo Inc For: Oct 03
October 3, 2014 8:01 AM EDT
http://archive.fast-edgar.com/20141003/APA2B22CZZ22S9ZZ2RJM2ZZABMMG2B22Z262
That is TWO years old.
October 3, 2012 12:01 PM EDT
Agree. I added more today.
There has been nothing new filed on the PACER system for the DSS/Coupons case since July 10th.
Pretty much everything filed by Coupons regarding the MSJ has been sealed. There is nothing to view.
At this point in time, one of us has already uploaded/posted/linked to all the important available documents and filings in this case.
For anyone who wants to login and follow the court system and document uploads in real time, you can create a FREE account at www.pacer.gov to do so. You don't have to feel held hostage by those who have opened an account since it is a public service (Public Access to Court Electronic Records = P.A.C.E.R.).
Thanks, Hydro_gen
here is that whitepaper: Street Light Small Cells - A Revolution in Mobile Operator Network Economics (PDF file, 68 pages, 5.95 MB)
LOL. Good one!
update from PACER on the VRNG vs. Belkin case:
09/29/2014 9 ORAL ORDER: Whereas Defendant's answers was due to be filed on 9/26/2014 (see D.I. 8 ), and to date none has been filed. Now the parties shall file a status letter with the Court within 3 days from the entry of this Order. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 9/29/2014. (nms) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
No. That was never expected, promised, or even mentioned. People have completely blown up the facts and twisted/distorted them.
The only thing that was discussed was a filing deadline in Delaware District Court regarding Belkin's response to the complaint. VRNG filed with the court an unopposed motion to extend Belkin's response time. In the motion, VRNG mentioned they had reached a settlement in principal.
At no time did VRNG or anyone else say they were going to announce a settlement with the public, provide settlement details to anyone, or anything of the like.
1) "treble damages" just means triple the actual past damages for a defendant who has willfully infringed on a patent
2) most enhanced damages (as a result of willful infringement) are lower than 3X
3) the concept of enhanced damages (including treble damages) for willful infringement is limited to just a few countries, including the USA... it does not apply to European litigation
4) VRNG is not suing ZTE in the USA for patent infringement, all of the patent lawsuits have been filed in foreign jurisdictions
5) ZTE's violation of the terms of the NDA is considered a breach of contract, it has nothing to do with patent infringement and, thusly, the concept of treble damages has nothing to do with it
6) in summary: No, No, No, No, and Hell No
Bingo.
I believe the MSJ was sealed as were all the supporting documents & statements.
The response from DSS is here: http://wirelessledger.com/DSS_opposition_MSJ.pdf
As a fan of the game, especially the main event at the world series, I love a good "chip & a chair" reference.
Quite an amazing story and a good parable to use in many aspects of investing, gambling, speculation, etc.
I too agree with you that the odds that DSS's (Bascom's) patents survive 101 eligibility is not zero. Perhaps they will agree to a modest settlement. Perhaps the patents will survive challenge.
It would seem unlikely at this point, but clearly not unimaginable and it's just impossible for any of us to predict these outcomes with any certainty.
I think the news is of the cumulative variety.
There have been multiple decisions across different venues concerning software patents and they all seem to be going the same way.
The VirtualAigility decision seems to be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" and the market is betting (heavily) that Bascom's patents may be ruled patent ineligible.
Like most patent investments, the market has a tendency to focus on one or two big cases and seems to ignore the inherent value of all of the other pieces to the puzzle.
EMI24, if I knew the answer to that I would be charging patent lawyers insane amounts of money to help them make their cases in these disputes.
I have no clue how Bascom Research will assert the patent eligibility for these patents, outside of the limited arguments previously made in challenging the stay(s) back at the start of the year.
Also, you are correct about the broad applications as stated by Moreno in the DSS report. That report was, obviously, prepared and published long before the Alice issue and 101 became a major topic in the sector. Bascom has a big fight on its hands and it will take some excellent arguments to win it.
Based on the SCOTUS ruling, I believe the Bascom patents "should" be patent eligible. But the way the courts and PTAB are applying the Alice ruling is mind-boggling, at least to me.
Bascom has to prove that the patents are a real improvement in linking and relationships. I think they are. I think it can be proven. But I have no confidence that the judges who are going to listen to Bascom's arguments are going to be open-minded and can be convinced.
We have seen the sua-sponte decision to invalidate VRNG's software patents by the Federal Circuit panel reviewing the IPE vs GOOG case. We have seen a number of ineligibility declarations since Alice by PTAB and the courts.
It's as if the courts, especially CAFC, are re-writing patent law case by case in the current session, as opposed to applying existing patent law.
Look around at IP stocks with "home run" litigation. VRNG, VHC, DSS, SPEX, etc. They have all been crushed. DSS is going to be swimming upstream in Bascom, and it's a real shame because Thomas Bascom's patents are novel and legit, but they are being asserted in a time-period that has almost overnight become an anti-technology and anti-patent landscape.
Not fun times to be an IP investor, and I recommend all retail folks only speculate with money that won't impact their lives should events not play out the way they hope.
There is nothing on PACER for the VirtualAgility case (# 2:13-cv-00011-JRG) since July 10th.
CAFC has ruled the case should be stayed, and that decision is in force, although an en banc petition has been filed. Highly unlikely the Federal Circuit will review that decision en banc.
Salesforce.com Gets PTAB To Nix Database Patent Under Alice
By Ryan Davis
Law360, New York (September 18, 2014, 8:45 PM ET) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has found that a VirtualAgility Inc. patent on a project management method is invalid for claiming only an abstract idea under the U.S. Supreme Court's Alice Corp. ruling, in a win for accused infringer Salesforce.com Inc.
The board issued a final decision Tuesday in a proceeding under the American Invents Act's business method patent review program, ruling that VirtualAgility's patent, which describes a way of using a computer database to model and manage collaborative activity by multiple people, covers a "disembodied concept" that is not eligible for a patent.
"We find that the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea, the creation and use of models to aid in processing management information by organizing and making the information readily accessible by the collaborators of the project," the board wrote.
VirtualAgility sued Salesforce.com and many of its customers, including Dell Inc. and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas in January 2013. It claimed its patent was infringed by Salesforce.com's "Sales Cloud" software, which helps users track, manage and analyze sales data. Salesforce.com challenged the patent at the PTAB in May 2013.
In June, the Supreme Court held in Alice that patents involving an abstract idea must include limitations that narrow the patent so it does not cover the idea itself. At the PTAB, VirtualAgility said its patent met that test because it required that a computer processor carry out specific operations.
The board was not persuaded, writing that Alice made clear that simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. Similarly, the part of the patent requiring that a computer database be created that represents a model of the collaborative activity also does not save the patent from being abstract, the board said.
That language "would preempt the entirety of [the] abstract idea (i.e., it would preclude individuals from using a model to organize and make available management information to collaborators jointly working on a project)," the board said.
Separately, the board found that the patent was invalid as anticipated by an earlier patent and denied VirtualAgility's motion to amend the claims. It said the company failed to show how the new claims would be patent-eligible.
The case has already produced a notable Federal Circuit decision that may lead more courts to stay cases when a challenge is filed under the AIA. After Salesforce.com challenged the patent, it sought a stay of the infringement case, but the district court judge denied the request, saying the review would not simplify the case.
The Federal Circuit reversed in July, holding that the judge "clearly erred" in denying the stay, citing provisions of the AIA that "weigh heavily in favor of a stay."
VirtualAgility asked the full Federal Circuit last month to review that decision en banc, but it has not yet made a decision.
Attorneys for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling.
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number 8,095,413.
Salesforce.com is represented by Jose Villarreal, Michael Rosato, Steve Parmelee, Joel Boehm, Brian Range, Adam Burrowbridge and Paul McAdams of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC.
VirtualAgility is represented by Gregory Gonsalves of the Gonsalves Law Firm and Jay Kesan of Key IP Law Group PLLC.
The case is Salesforce.com Inc. v. VirtualAgility Inc., case number CBM2013–00024, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The underlying case is VirtualAgility Inc v. Salesforce.com, Inc. et al., case number 2:13-cv-00011, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
--Editing by Kat Laskowski.
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/578194/salesforce-com-gets-ptab-to-nix-database-patent-under-alice
we got a good laugh over this yesterday
it made me want to load up every other redacted PDF file I have in my folders and see if I could just highlight and copy the text to see what is hiding behind the blackness!
LOL
Here it is...
Doc Title: Granting Interdigital's Motion for a Protective Order Regarding the Scope of Discovery (PDF file, 7 pages)
Don’t be surprised to see a new patent war break-out in 3D printing space
Although it is new and relatively untested, don’t be surprised if further down the line there is patent litigation in the 3D printing space akin to what has been seen in the mobile devices sector over recent years. This was one of the key takeaways at a conference held yesterday in Washington DC that focused on the IP issues being posed by this rapidly evolving technology.
According to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner partner John Hornick most people are yet to fully understand the impact that 3D printing, or additive manufacturing as it is also called, could have on the patent landscape: he predicted that the technology could eventually have the effect of making IP largely irrelevant as it becomes much harder to enforce rights. Drawing parallels with the music industry, Hornick pointed out that that sector had ended up dealing with the challenges posed by the internet and mp3 file sharing by basing its response on an altered economic model not through asserting IP.
It was clear from listening to speakers at the day-long event that the litigation risks around 3D printing are rising as the sector attracts more capital; and, as with smartphones, a range of technologies start to coalesce around the platform. Duann Scott, a design evangelist with the on-demand 3D printing company Shapeways, pointed out that a lot of investment in the industry was now focused on the development of apps designed, in part, to widen the appeal and use of the technology in the mass market.
Many delegates agreed that there were some notable similarities with the mobile devices sector and the potential for litigation, but Hornick stressed that the prospect of headline-grabbing courtroom tussles is still some way off. Disputes would not arise, he said, until the market had grown and companies’ market capitalisations were much larger. Although it has emerged as one of the zeitgeist’s favourite technologies, the 3D printing market is still relatively small with growth projections putting it at $16.2 billion by 2018.
The day-long event, which featured policy makers, advisers, entrepreneurs and designers, also saw Ocean Tomo chairman and CEO, Jim Malackowski, unveil a new piece of research analysing the just over 2,000 issued US patents that cover 3D printing. The research revealed the top assignees in five technology areas covered by the sector with the top 10 featuring specialist companies like 3D Systems and Stratasys, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and major multinationals like Boeing, HP and Intel. The study also looked at patent quality with 40% of the patents in the market rated at A- or above on Ocean Tomo’s Rating system.
http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=ac5e981c-1842-4871-aca8-b6ccc17b5a6f
In response to the Court's Order of September 15, 2014, Plaintiff Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. reports that it and Defendant Belkin International, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle. The parties expect to complete a formal settlement agreement shortly. Defendant inadvertently did not file its response to the Complaint by September 12, 2014.
Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to extend the time by which Defendant must answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint to September 26, 2014. The parties expect to complete the formal settlement agreement by that time. Defendant has requested, and Plaintiff has agreed, to extend this deadline as the parties work to execute the formal settlement agreement in connection with this Action.
Very true, hispeedsoul.
For MARA investors, the real bright side of all of these CAFC decisions that seem to keep going against patent owners - is that MARA doesn't have many cases that go to trial. Let alone have to worry about verdicts being upheld by old men in robes.
And even if MARA does have a case go the distance, so to speak, such a case would not represent the lion's share of MARA's value. And therefore an adverse decision wouldn't be catastrophic for the stock price in the short-to-intermediate term.
I do not disagree. Nobody is saying VRNG's chances are 1%.
All one is saying is that it is reckless and foolish "to guarantee" any litigation outcome or legal decision. Such recklessness/foolish is only compounded when it involves higher courts (i.e., CAFC) and decisions such as the granting of en banc reviews that have historically been very, very, very uncommon.
None of us know how the answer to the question you posed of "How much greater than 1%". But most of us can logically conclude it's closer to 1% than it is 100%.
1) the author is a good guy, but his historical body of work is very Pumper-iffic
2) SA is a crappy platform for amateur bloggers to promote/bash stocks usually based on terrible logic and the misinterpretation of facts
3) comparisons to other companies in the IP space has always been a pet peeve for many of us -- no two companies are alike, no patent portfolios are alike, and certainly nobody else out there is like MARA
I suppose in the grand scheme it's not a big deal and most of the market won't know or care about this PR and the SA article. It will be water under the bridge in 48 hours.
But for me, it's something I don't want to see. I know what SA is and how it is perceived by informed investors and institutions. I know who reads SA articles. I know how wrong and terrible most SA articles are/turn out to be. (They shouldn't even be called "articles" as they are just the same thing as a message board post here or on any other website or blog.)
So I want people talking about the company, too, but there is a bare minimum standard I would like to see exercised when choosing how to get that discussion started. This is all I will say on the subject. I've already moved on.
Agree with both of you. EOM
ditto
I am grateful for the opportunity to reallocate profits elsewhere into more DDD
I believe it is reckless to "guarantee" any legal decision or outcome, especially an en banc review being granted by CAFC -- because those have historically been granted around 1% of the time.
Also, I disagree wholeheartedly that big companies are "up in arms" or upset about the I/P Engine vs. Google decision handed down by the Federal Circuit. I believe they are celebrating it. They are rejoicing. They loved it.
Why? because contrary to what VRNG investors believe, this CAFC decision does not adversely impact any big patent owner. The patents of IBM, Apple, etc. are not in jeopardy of being invalidated. The decision was specific to the two Lang/Kosak patents. As wrong as that decision was in almost all of our eyes here in VRNG land, it was just one non-precedential decision concerning specific patents in a sea of thousands and thousands and thousands of other non-precedential decisions concerning other specific patents.
I can't recall a specific case where I have seen it before, so I assume it is not common. But I don't follow every case and even for those that I do, I don't spend too much time reading all pre-hearing submissions.
On the surface, one would think this was a big coup for the defense... getting the inventor to testify on patent claims that fit with Apple's proposals. But I think the knife cuts both ways. CAFC historically ruled that an inventor isn't the best witness for a Markman hearing because he is prone to bias and has a self-serving agenda. And in the end it is CAFC who will be reviewing the Markman definitions, assuming the case gets that far.
It doesn't look like Carvey is going to testify on all the disputed claims definitions, but will be a witness for a couple important ones. And in this case the court is not going to rely on the parties' experts as much as it will it's own special master/technical advisor. So I wouldn't think Carvey's testimony is going to be a game-breaker.
Seems standard. On one hand, Apple is retaining (paying nicely -- $400/hour) the inventor of the '290.
On the other hand, DSS has some nice reference material to back up its positions on the constructions of the definitions.
These Markman opinions are not easy to handicap... whether or not a special advisor is being used. But in this case, Richard Egan is the special master helping the court. And he seems to be a good person for the job.
See: http://oepelaw.com/richard-d-egan/
All investors can really do is wait for the Markman order when it gets handed down.
No, not all 35% went to legal. The owner/inventor and other entities receive some of the litigation proceeds.
These are not black & white contracts.
DSS hired Kramer Levin at the outset of the Bascom vs. Facedbook litigation and KL took the case on a contingency. The Coupons.com case as well.
From the Oct 4, 2012 Conference Call:
Sandy Wyman: lot of lawsuits are obviously extremely expensive, sometimes they take a great deal of time. Have you approached
or have there been any law firms approached you about contingency type suits for instance with the coupons.com, I believe that’s
under contingency basis?
Will Rosellini: I am going to talk process here and we can also talk a little bit about what is involved. So what DSS is getting in this
merger is the lawsuit has been filed, the contract does have some upsides for the law firm Kramer Levin but essentially the
combined company is going to get 65% of the combined proceeds going forward. When all that’s done, we actually wanted to own
more of the case so we put cash in at the Lexington side so we don’t have to worry about at an ongoing basis not being able to
afford the lawsuit. We’re in it for the long haul. Of course we have IPNav that’s going to be running the licensing side of the
campaign. And then Kramer Levin, I’ll let peter talk a little bit about Kramer Levin and their background and sort of that side of it if
you want to hear more.
Source: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/771999/000114420412055318/v325301_425.htm
You have a lot to learn about patent litigation.
So close. Still happy with $13.95
it's a fun battle of the tape heading into the last minute of trading
will we get a $14+ paint?