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 would suggest to checkout SSNT. Tiny float 1.9 million shares. They are due any day to announce 2 acquisitions. Could be one of these crazy plays.
SGOC - reporting after closing tomorrow. Might be worth watching.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1849301-sgoco-group-poised-to-join-intercloud-in-orbit-following-a-probable-earnings-blowout?source=yahoo
Got some shares today. You never know...
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
The Judge Should Rule Favorably For Vringo On Motions
December 18, 2012 | 1 commentby: EXPstocktrader | about: VRNG, includes: GOOG Disclosure: I am long VRNG. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)
For those of you who have been following the case and most of the PACER docs in the patent infringement trial of Vringo (VRNG) vs. Google (GOOG), AOL (AOL), Target (TGT), Gannett (GCI), and IAC/InterActive (IACI), we are waiting for Vringo to make their final post trial motions which I feel will come like a torpedo within hours.
As I wrote in a prior article, on Nov. 6, 2012, the "420" and "664" patents owned by Vringo were finally "validated" in a federal court in Virginia, and the jury unanimously returned a verdict award for Vringo amounting to $32 million with respect to past damages involving the following defendants.
Let's Be Perfectly Clear:
1) There has been a lot of speculation slanted toward the positive as well as the negative sides involving this case.
2) The "final judgment" in this case has not been made by presiding Judge Jackson, but I feel as if we should have some additional material news tonight before midnight.
As Per Vringo's Latest Rebuttal:
Dated December 7, 2012 the parties (Vringo and Google) do not dispute that the appropriate form of damages is a running royalty. The parties also do not dispute that the jury awarded a royalty rate of 3.5%. The only disagreement appears to be over the appropriate apportionment factor to use to arrive at the royalty base to which the 3.5% royalty rate would apply.
Item #13. In the November 9, 2012 Declaration, it is explained that the appropriate
apportionment percentage is 20.9%. This is the flat going-forward apportionment percentage that I presented at trial (Trial Tr. at 820-21). The 20.9% apportionment factor is applied to Defendants' total U.S. revenues from the accused systems, AdWords, AdSense For Search and AdSense For Mobile Search (derived from the requested accounting) to determine the apportioned royalty base.
Item #14. According to Dr. Ugone, an apportionment rate of 2.8%, not 20.9%, should be used for the calculation of Google's supplemental damages. He arrives at this figure by visually estimating the height of bars on a demonstrative exhibit presented to the jury (PDX-441) and comparing those estimated amounts to the $15.8 million that the jury awarded from Google. (See Ugone Decl. ¶ 8 and Exh. 2.) Several things are obvious from Dr. Ugone's calculation and his resulting opinion that the appropriate apportionment percentage should be 2.8%. Dr. Ugone's methodology ignores the fact that the jury awarded damages to I/P Engine from AOL, IAC, Gannett and Target as well as from Google. Dr. Ugone estimates the ratio of the jury award against Google as a proportion of the estimated $118 million in claimed damages for the period September 15, 2011 through September 30, 2011. (See Ugone Decl. Exhibit 2 court doc) Even assuming the premise of his calculation was reasonable (which it is not), the calculation is flawed on its face. The damages figures presented to the jury in graphical form at PDX-083 and again at PDX-441 were the total damages for all defendants, not just the damages associated with Google's infringement. This can be seen by comparing the bar chart at PDX-083, which is clearly labeled as totaling $493 million in royalties, to PDX-44, the bar chart used by Dr. Ugone. Both present identical royalty amounts, with the only difference being that in PDX-441the bars for Q4 2011 through Q3 2012 have been shaded, reflecting the post-laches time period.
That the total amount, $493 million in royalties, represents all defendants, not just Google, is evident from the trial transcript and from PDX-055, a summary of the royalty damages that was presented to the jury during the trial. (Trial Tr. at 767:20-768-8).
Item #15. By using only the $15.8 million awarded against Google and ignoring the $14,696,155 awarded against the other Defendants, Dr. Ugone is suggesting a meaningless and unreliable apportionment percentage. This can be demonstrated by applying his 2.8% apportionment factor to the period covered by the actual award. Total accused revenues (including the Google co-defendants) for the period from September 15, 2011 through September 30, 2012 were, based on accounting documents produced by Google (and admitted as trial exhibits?) were $16,181,666,400. Dr. Ugone's 2.8% apportionment factor, if applied to
these undisputed amounts of revenue yield total royalties, for all defendants, of $15,858,033, not the total jury award of $30,496,155.
Item #16. The only relevant apportionment percentage proffered at trial, however, and the only apportionment percentage ever suggested to the jury was 20.9%. Neither PDX-441 nor any other exhibit or demonstrative introduced at trial supports a 2.8% apportionment factor.
To arrive at Dr. Ugone's conclusion, one must ignore all evidence presented at trial, back into an implied speculative apportionment factor, and ignore the rest of the jury award.
Item #17. The likely reason for Defendants' convoluted apportionment calculation and exclusion of the damages awarded from the other defendants is the decimal point transposition error made by the jury in the verdict form. Based on my review of the verdict form and evidence submitted in this case, it is clear that the jury, in an apparent effort to adjust the total damages down to just the post-laches damages period, applied a percentage to the originally pre-laches damages amount of $493 million.2 A simple mathematical calculation bears this out. Using the $493 million, including the Defendant-specific breakdown as the base, the jury awarded 35% of the damages I/P engine sought for the original damages period for each of AOL, IAC, Gannett, and Target. (See attached Exhibit 3) For each of these defendants, there can be no question that the jury applied its 3.5% royalty rate to the only apportionment factor that was presented at trial: 20.9%. The equivalent damages figure against Google, consistent with this approach, should have been $158,000,000. However, for Google, the jury awarded $15,800,000. This amount is
simply 3.5% of the damages I/P sought for the original damages period-one tenth the amount awarded for the other defendants. (See attached Exhibit 3) The evidence of the underlying revenues for each of these defendants was the same. The apportionment percentage that was presented to the jury was always the same for all defendants, namely 20.9%. The royalty rate opinion offered, 3.5%, was always the same for all Defendants. Thus, the portion of the amount I/P Engine sought for the original damages period should have been the same for each of the defendants.
Because of the exactness of the numbers being 10 times off, the most plausible explanation is a simple decimal point transposition.
Item #18. Again, the only apportionment percentage (relevant to this issue) with which the jury was ever presented was 20.9%. In contrast, there was no evidence at all of a 2.8% factor 2 (See PDX-055 for an example of the damages breakdown by Defendant that was presented to the jury.) and, in particular, no evidence upon which one could conclude that the intended royalty rate to be applied to Google was an order of magnitude lower than the other defendants.
To arrive at Dr. Ugone's conclusion, one must jump through multiple hoops-none of which were ever proffered at trial.
Some have questioned a reference to the need of the judge to correct clear error and prevent manifest injustice. It is important to understand how and where they apply. It relates to the Court's duty to exercise sound judgment in the exercise of his discretion re altering the judgment. It also applies to the exercise of his duties under Rule 60. If you will go to the Plaintiff's Reply statement at page 15 and to the Footnote 5 statement that we have been focused on, you will see that the footnote is a footnote to a particular phrase used by the Plaintiff in his Reply.
The phrase is: "clear error".
The point that was being made was that if the Judge chose not to inquire into the issue of the decimal "transposition", one could argue that a manifest injustice had occurred.
But, once he decides to look into the matter, Vringo argues that it is 'clear error'. In a nutshell, Vringo attempted to incorporate both phrases to demonstrate how they might apply.
We should all agree that this is an experienced federal judge. He is not a fool by any means. Oh no, he knows the problem and I strongly feel that he will fix it if he can. The judge may have already made up his mind on the outcome? He may already know exactly what he is going to rule. We don't, and will have to wait it out as painful as it may seem today. Silence is deafening. Fear is amongst us with no updates. Conviction for the longs is all we have. Conviction that Don Stout and Ken Lang have done everything that they said that they would do from the start.
Who knows, the full outcome may already be decided in the judge's eyes given the laches ruling that threw everyone for a loop. Unbeknownst to us, there have been many sessions in the judge's chambers to find a resolution here? It's all pure speculation until the judge speaks. The Judge may have already indicated to the parties counsel that he is prepared to deal with this issue if no settlement ever arises. He probably doesn't want detailed motions and he doesn't want argument, but this does seem to be forthcoming. He can move on his own motion under Rule 60. Be assured that whatever happens, Vringo's attorney Sherwood will do what is appropriate to meet their strategy.
Many have conceded that the Judge saw the problem right away. Each federal district has their own way of dealing with these kind of things. He knows how to handle these situations when and if they should arise as rare as they may be. All of this guessing right now is highly speculative you know. It does raise another question in this case. How can you not consider the integrity of the juror's evidence after several weeks of news and social pressure in this case? Was it all for nothing? I don't believe so.
Key Updates Should Be Forthcoming By Wednesday:
According to docs filed with a serious deadline looming, tonight is the last chance for Vringo to file their post-trial motions and reveal their strategy against the defendants. I suspect that this will be good news for those who have been patiently waiting for more details in this trial. We all need to shed some light on the future strategy by Vringo.
Last Thought:
Will Ken Lang announce a new mobile Platform Soon? Remember he is the mathematical genius that invented and patented search methodology that lawyers say AOL, Google and others are infringing upon. Doesn't Ken Lang now oversee a development team based in Israel? I think so. It's a talented group, he said in a recent filing. He visited them earlier this year and is eager to collaborate on a major new project. He further commented that it's a platform he has wanted to do for five years.
The Bottom Line:
When the new post trial docs are released and the judge eventually makes his final ruling on all of the damages and running royalties in favor of Vringo, it will give a big boost to those who have been holding stock in Vringo. An opportunity for a year-end run in Vringo stock is still valid. As for Google and the others named as defendants, sure it will sting a little. Egos may get bruised a bit, but a strong favorable "final" ruling by judge Jackson favoring Vringo should not have a damaging effect on rising earnings like we have seen with Google year over year. Stay tuned.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1071361-the-judge-should-rule-favorably-for-vringo-on-motions?source=email_rt_article_readmore&ifp=0
Bravo! Excellent post!!!
I am a huge believer in this stock long term. Adding at the dips as much as I can. I don't think there is much downside here compare to upside.
GLTA
Post Unavailable
Additional Information
Disclosure: I am long VRNG. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)
Investing Background with Vringo
When we first met...
Before Facebook (FB) IPO'd in late May, I had been searching for ways on which to play the rising hype. Zynga (ZNGA) was a contender, as a considerable portion of FB's revenue was derived from ZNGA. SVVC was another pick. Firsthand Technology Value Fund (SVVC), owned a considerable amount of the social media giant and had been on my radar for a while. But I wanted something even more risky.
Soon enough I came face to face with Vringo (VRNG) after a late night researching smaller social media companies in February. VRNG was (and still is) a very small company and I thought it would be a great play on the upcoming FB IPO.
I first bought in at $1.21/share, planning to sell close to FB's IPO into the hype. Little did I know this small gamble on hype would have been such a good long bet today.
When we needed some space...
One day VRNG's price skyrocketed from a blog post by James Altucher (here) and I sold out mostly. To be honest, I don't see much value in the video ringtone market or in VRNG, and a large gain like that on such a speculative play was enough for me.
I bought into SVVC when it fell back into the $20s after its huge run up into the high $40s. Close to FB's IPO, the price peaked. I held and hope for a big show after the IPO, but boy was I wrong. I bring SVVC back up because I lost a good amount (for a college student) that day, but it was a gamble, and gamblers play for the risk.
Our relationship now:
Point being, investors are pushing prices up in VRNG for the litigation win against Google. Another article I read earlier in the Chicago Tribune (here) speaks to VRNG and companies like it. We could go on and on about small companies purchasing patent portfolios for litigation gains and speculative investors driving the price, but savvy investors already knew that.
Playing this stock is a highly speculative bet and I would not consider this an investment by any means. I've read so many of these Seeking Alpha articles, these no name blog articles and all that jazz hyping up the case (here, here and there) and I feel like someone needs to give it to you straight. VRNG, at least currently, is just a gamble. VRNG could see a large price jump if the court decision lands in their favor, but be aware that price fluctuations are heavily reliant on good and bad press. If they fail, I would imagine an equally large price decline.
I bought in again in the $3.30 range, and like you am hoping for a big win from the upcoming trial. VRNG is, like SVVC was, in my speculative play portfolio. The value it has to me is the enjoyment of the risk.
In all, I would consider myself a value investor at heart and would not invest in a company of this nature but I sure do love a martini and a gamble from time to time, both of which this time are on the rocks.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/943421-vringo-it-s-really-now-or-never?source=email_rt_article_readmore&ifp=0
Latest post from Percyway from YMB:
Court updates- Dr. Frieders testimony
By percyway.5 minutes ago.Permalink
.
Dr. Frieder walked thru in laymans terms on how Goog is infringing on patents. He is a search guru himself. He has officially said on record that Goog infringed on patents.
He demonstrated entire animated and color coded version of patents and showed exactly how Goog infringed. Guys, even a plumber can now relate to search, relevacy, collaborative feedback, ranking, filtering and display.
His testimony is going to continue again. He repeatedly mentioned that muliple sources of Goog has convinced him, including past court appearance of googles Halen in california court. Besides, exhibits are shown where googles own documents trace thru exact process used in patents
Sentiment: Strong Buy
http://finance.yahoo.com/mbview/threadview/?&bn=335d0cab-c8c2-325a-b1c7-5bd038d7c88f&tid=1350590897862-c254a06f-cfad-4594-809c-a151dc514134&tls=la%2Cd%2C1
I posted the article where people are making assumptions:
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/10_-_October/Interview__Vringo_bets_on_patent_lawsuits_to_drive_revenue_growth/
The lawsuit comes up for hearing on Oct. 16, after the companies failed to reach a settlement on Tuesday, Perlman said.
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/10_-_October/Interview__Vringo_bets_on_patent_lawsuits_to_drive_revenue_growth/
By Aditya Kondalamahanty and Sruthi Ramakrishnan
Oct 10 (Reuters) - Mobile software company Vringo Inc, best known for its video ringtones, is betting on recently acquired intellectual property to drive revenue growth as it battles several big names including Google Inc and ZTE Corp over infringement of its patents.
"We believe that the intellectual property that we own is substantial revenue to be earned and we would not go through with it (the lawsuits) unless we are confident that we will get a positive result for us and our shareholders," said Vringo's Chief Executive Andrew Perlman.
Shares of the company have gained about 56 percent since the beginning of the month following reports that its lawsuit against Google had merit.
Google's demand for a summary judgment was dismissed by a district judge on Oct. 3, citing "genuine issues of material fact in dispute."
The lawsuit comes up for hearing on Oct. 16, after the companies failed to reach a settlement on Tuesday, Perlman said.
Vringo inherited the lawsuit after it acquired Innovate/Protect (I/P), a company which specializes in monetizing intellectual property, in March.
I/P had filed a patent infringement lawsuit against AOL Inc, Google, IAC/InterActiveCorp-owned IAC Search & Media, Gannett Co Inc and Target Corp in 2011.
The lawsuit against Google involves two patents that I/P bought from Lycos, one of the biggest search engines of the 90's.
Vringo is seeking at least $696 million from Google, financial website iStockAnalyst had reported.
"It would be logical for Google to buy Vringo and then use them as a strategic patent weapon, for example, to sue Microsoft Corp," Maxim Group analyst John Tinker said.
Google declined to comment on the matter.
While Google is trying to fight it out, AOL partly settled the dispute in August paying $100,000.
"We settled with them (AOL) only for the use of their own in-house products, but not for their use of Google's products," said Perlman, who became CEO after the merger with I/P.
Vringo bought 500 wireless patents from Nokia in August to strengthen its intellectual property portfolio.
The company on Monday filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Chinese telecommunications equipment maker ZTE in the U.K. High Court of Justice.
The ZTE lawsuit involves patents acquired from Nokia, Perlman said.
He, however, declined to say if the company plans to pursue further lawsuits using the Nokia patents.
Tuesday, October 9, 5:25 PM After a volatile day featuring trading volume over 5x higher than average, Vringo (VRNG -18%) closed with big losses, as trading closed without a Google settlement being announced. A short-lived afternoon rally was attributed to a report of a settlement that would up being discredited, though some remain intrigued by the fact the Vringo-Google trial (set for an Oct. 16 start) no longer appears on a court docket. The fact Vringo's stock offering closed today may have contributed to the volatility.
http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/577641?source=email_rt_mc_readmore&ifp=0
A bunch of Form 4's got filed just now.
From yahoo message board:
DOCKET UPDATE------------
By thehonorablejudgewapner.37 minutes ago.Permalink
Very interesting development. Although GOOG has filed a number of pro hac vice docs (my guess is to give the impression of going to court, settlement leverage, etc) a separate file has been made from an "public" individual (company) outside of this case. Suffolk technologies has filed patent infringement against GOOG & AOL that supposedly infringe on their patents (adwords/adsense/ etc). It is a compelling argument but essentially if the court orders what they are requesting, all GOOG & AOL sealed docs would be unsealed during trial.
You can come to your own conclusions but this could be a schit storm for the defendants as it adds to the settlement conference and overall leverage for Vringo.
The roller coaster continues
IMO this that is a big PLUS for VRNG, what Suffolk has done. They are basically saying Google can not seal all of their "secret" info that it has to be available to Suffolk. It gives more reason for Google to settle with VRNG, so that this stuff is not made public, that they want to seal.
I like this part from PR:
"Our cash position will enhance our ability to more effectively monetize our internet search patents as well as our recently acquired telecom infrastructure portfolio."
Amazing day here.
First time closed above $5.00 on incredible volume.
GO SNEY
Thursday, October 4, 1:14 PM Vringo (VRNG +24.4%) takes off for the second day in a row following the denial of Google's (GOOG) request for a summary judgment on Vringo's patent suit against the search giant - shares are now up 72% over the last 2 days. Steve Kim, a lawyer and SA author, argues today the fact that court-ordered Oct. 9 settlement talks will take place immediately after a judge hears a Vringo motion for sanctions against Google could give Vringo leverage. (earlier)
http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/571541?source=email_rt_mc_readmore&ifp=0
Another interesting comment by Modernist today:
Let me be 100% clear: VRNG is grossly undervalued at this time. 3 Oct, 01:04 PM
and then he wrote:
Message $15 would not be crazy. http://seekingalpha.co... 3 Oct, 01:51 PM
Another comment by James Altucher today:
Steve, I agree that the best thing can happen is settlement, which would then cause VRNG to trade at a multiple of settlement given:
- the NOK portfolio
- the ongoing revenues from GOOG (I assume a royalty will be in the settlement)
- the multiple other companies in similar situations get (in particular, VHC with it's 10x over the settlement).
So that could happen. I just think buyout more likely because better for Google but they would have to make it attractive enough for two reasons:
A) scare away the other potential bidders: MSFT YHOO AAPL ORCL
B) convince VRNG not to go the settlement route.
The economics of a buyout might be simple, simply: "we'll pay $12 a share in cash/stock if you drop lawsuit on us and all of our customers". I'm making up the number $12 but my guess is their offer will be very simple.
Also, let's not forget VRNG has a very good team. Ken Lang was CTO of Lycos. The NOK chief litigator is now VRNG's litigator. GOOG has been buying up portfolios of telco patents. This is a deal that makes good sense.
So either way, its good for shareholders. Settlement though is where we can get the $30 stock.
Super day for us longs here.
Even Modernist wrote:
What if?
If the judge rejects Google's MSJ, this would create an ideal long entry point for VRNG traders. It is unlikely that shares would immediately move up to an extent reflecting the opportunity; the stock would be undervalued. After surviving Summary Judgment, Vringo would have a much higher likelihood of receiving a settlement offer. In this scenario, I would consider any price below $5 a no-brainer bargain.
Go VRNG!
Disclosure: I am long VRNG. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)
Yesterday, in "Vringo vs. Google: Staying Focused Amid The Din," I tried to make some of the goings on in our favorite court Vringo (VRNG) vs. Google (GOOG) case a bit more accessible to the 90% of us who are fortunate enough to make a living without having to be lawyers.
One commenter, Marpha, posed a very cogent question about Google's chances of staying the trial (which is two weeks away) pending the USPTO's patent reexamination:
"What do you think the possibility to be that Google will file a Motion to Stay to allow the PTO to reach a final determination?
This article suggests the Eastern District of Virginia grants stays for re-examination 60% of the time."
http://bit.ly/R8K6gE
This is a great question, and it underscores the very dynamic that makes Vringo bettors so insecure. A big part of our bet hinges on litigation, and litigation is inherently unpredictable. Two judges can make different decisions based on the same set of facts, and paradoxically, both can be "right."
1. Will Google File A Motion To Stay?
I think the better way to ask this question is: Why Wouldn't Google file a motion to stay? From Google's standpoint, the leverage they would obtain from a stay is considerable, and would offset the leverage Vringo now holds by reason of being on the expedited trial track (the so called "Rocket Docket"). From the standpoint of Google's lawyers, filing such a motion is a no-brainer, since lawyers tend to file as many plausible motions as their clients' budgets will allow. This is a function of attorneys' three-pronged need: (1) to be thorough; (2) to cover their bottoms; and (3) to generate more fees. In fact, I am surprised a motion to stay has not been filed yet, since with trial approaching, time is not on Google's side.
2. Should A Motion to Stay Be Granted?
Now on to the real issue of whether such a motion would be granted, especially in view of Marpha's observation that the cited article speaks of a 60% success rate for such motions in the Eastern District of Virginia ("EDVA") (where this case is set to be tried). A 60% success rate sounds quite intimidating, but let's unpack that a bit.
In truth, I don't believe the "percentages" are very relevant, because the decision to grant or deny a stay request is very fact specific (i.e., the facts vary from case to case), and the decision is within the Court's discretion. The EDVA, like other jurisdictions, uses a three part balancing test in deciding motions to stay pending reexamination: (1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party, (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case, and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set. No single factor is controlling, but each is analyzed and thrown into the mix in the Court's discretion.
In the case of ePlus v. Lawson Software, the EDVA denied the motion to stay pending reexamination based upon the following factors:
· Substantial discovery had already occurred;
· A trial date was already set to commence 6 months down the line;
· Plaintiff would be prejudiced, because of the time it would have to wait to relitigate its claims, and the possibility it could lose its right to injunctive relief.
Compare this to the case of Juxtacomm v. Lanier, in which the EDVA granted the motion to stay pending reexamination, because:
· The request for reexamination had already been granted by the time the answer to the complaint was filed;
· The litigation was in its earliest stages;
· Any harm from the stay could be addressed through later award of money damages, if the plaintiff was successful.
Now which case sounds more like our case? In the Vringo case, discovery is completed, except possibly some remaining loose ends. Not only has trial been set in this case, it is scheduled to start in two weeks, whereas, the USPTO reexamination process has not even reached the stage where Vringo has even had to respond. In other words, the litigation is at an advanced and nearly complete stage, while the reexamination is at an early-mid stage.
The issue of prejudice cuts both ways. In Vringo's favor, the length of a delay would appear prejudicial in view of the fact that the litigation has virtually reached the courthouse steps. In Google's favor, there is no prejudice, because any delay could be compensated by a later award of money damages, if Vringo should prevail. I did not see any reference in Vringo's lawsuit to a request for injunctive relief against Google, so this would appear to show a lack of prejudice from a stay as well.
On balance, I don't think a stay is in the cards for Google. This case is just too far along, and Google has waited too long to file the motion. Had Google filed the motion months ago, its chances would obviously be much greater. Should it go forward with filing such a motion, I think the Court will find that it is too late to pull the rug out from under the Plaintiff. In the absence of a stay, trial starts as scheduled on October 16. This would be a huge positive for Vringo, since most of its leverage arises out of the upcoming trial date. I'm still looking for a settlement to occur prior to verdict, but even if the case does not settle, I am staying long.
Ain't litigation grand? Pass the popcorn, please.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/900961-vringo-vs-google-is-a-stay-of-trial-in-the-cards?source=email_rt_article_title&ifp=0
Today's docket text:
#273:
ORDER granting 272 Motion for Pro hac vice appearance. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on September 18, 2012. (Jackson, Raymond) Modified on 9/18/2012 to link gavel order to corrected Pro Hac Vice Order 272 filed by counsel as outlined in the Notice of Correction done by clerk on 9/18/12. Doc 272 took the place of Doc. 268 (ecav). (Entered: 09/18/2012)
# 272:
Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by James Ryerson and Certification of Local Counsel Donald C. Schultz Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-3208296. by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Schultz, Donald) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
#271:
ORDER granting 267 Motion for Pro hac vice appearance. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on September 18, 2012. (Entered: 09/18/2012)
#270:
ORDER granting 249 Motion for Pro hac vice appearance. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on September 18, 2012. (Entered: 09/18/2012)
Notice of Correction re 268 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by James Ryerson and Certification of Local Counsel Donald C. Schultz Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-3206773. Pro Hac Vice Motion does not contain the following: Bar Identification Number, applicants signature and signature of counsel. Clerk is removing Doc. 268 form the docket text and counsel is to refile completed Pro Hac Vic Motion. (ecav, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
#269:
ORDER GRANTING 247 Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions, filed by the defendants on September 14, 2012. ECF No. 247.For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. The Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions (ECF No. 247 attach. 1) and the Declaration of Joshua L. Sohn in Support of Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Sanctions (ECF No. 247 attach. 2) shall be DEEMED FILED. Entered and filed 9/18/12. (Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 9/18/12). (ecav, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
Anyone know what all this means?
Does it anyone know why with such huge volume the price is barely budging since hitting high this morning? Looks like all the action is happening within .33's range.
Would this volume surge precede price movement soon?
Thinking of getting position here.
New Enhydris Blog:
Thursday, September 13, 2012Motion hearing on prior art
The motion hearing on prior art is set for 9.18.12 at noon before Judge Stillman. We are predicting a ruling in favor of Vringo.
Update: By our count, that gives Google et al. exactly 18 working days to submit a Summary Judgement that would include the prior art, assuming they receive a favorable ruling. A Summary Judgement without this prior art simply has no teeth in our opinion. Then, within those 18 working days, Vringo would be allowed to file a counter motion, and Google would also need to file any rebuttal to the counter motion. Overall, a favorable ruling on any Summary Judgement for Google, Pre-Trial, is just not in the cards; the logistics simply don't work out without a substantial delay in the proceedings.
http://enhydrispe.blogspot.com/
Enhyndrispe Blog website is back up:
Wednesday, September 12, 2012Back online
Hi folks,
Sorry for the confusion. I was actually away today buying supplies from wholesalers for the restaurant that is set to open soon (Sept 28th). Unfortunately, my Google accounts, stocktwits, and twitter were all hacked. Fun stuff, I can assure you. I checked my email from an internet cafe in Manila and saw this mess. Sigh... As a result, I had to briefly shut down all of the accounts, change passwords, check for malware on our systems, etc...
As stated previously, I am finished posting articles about the Vringo patent case. So I certainly hope that was a clue to most readers that something was up. We briefly updated readers on the docket last week, but have stuck to our pledge of no further articles on Vringo's patent case.
I suspect that our blog has become a victim of its own success. Because we have such a large readership (2000 +), someone saw fit to hack our Google accounts and post an erroneous article.
Or perhaps, it's not too bright to be blogging about a patent infringement case against Google using Google Business App?
To our readers that received response emails from us about this article, we did NOT send those.
Ok, it's past mid-night here. So good luck and good night,
EPE
Posted by Enhydris PE at 9:33 AM No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
http://enhydrispe.blogspot.com/
Vringo Warrants Offer An Amazing Asymmetrical Trade
September 12, 2012 by: Logic Wins | about: VRNG, includes: GOOG
I have been trading for a long time, almost one third of my life. My mental framework has been built up from reading the Market Wizards books by Jack Schwager, and one of the biggest lessons I have learned from all of them is to look for asymmetrical trading opportunities. What are those? Trades where the downside is trounced by the potential upside.
A good relevant example might be Dendreon's (DNDN) first FDA ruling a few years ago. In case you missed it, DNDN was trading around $2-$3 with a massive short interest and then had favorable news and popped somewhere between $15-20 on the subsequent squeeze in the following hours. I think Vringo (VRNG) is offering a similar trade setup with an additional perk: possibly underpriced/underappreciated options and warrants.
The point is, when a low-dollar stock like Vringo has a large short interest and a big binomial event looming in the near future, it represents a good risk/reward trade. If they lose their suit against Google (GOOG), the stock will, of course, go down, but the large short interest will cushion the fall. If they win, the shorts act like gasoline on a fire. And remember, the stock price is already low to begin with - it can't go below $0!
Options (and warrants) pricing has gotten really efficient, but one thing they still do poorly is evaluate company-changing future events. That means you can further reduce the amount of downside by using these derivatives. February 2012 $5 call options are trading around $1.20 and give you four months of exposure after the onset of the trial on the "Rocket Docket" in Virginia. If you have read a little bit about this, even a speedy docket averages 2-3 months. Any positive news or an average court time could make these extremely profitable.
And that brings me to my final discovery. VRNG has outstanding warrants that expire in June 2015 that have been trading $0.35 - $0.45 premium to the February 2013 $5 calls. The differences? The strike for the warrants is $5.06, and the stock would be delivered from the company itself rather than another trader. Oh yeah, and about 16 additional months of time value to get through the inevitable appeals and more interestingly, a look at what they plan to do about the Nokia (NOK) patent purchase.
There has been endless debate about Vringo and their lawsuit against Google, but the bottom line for me is that it is a great trade on the long side, because the upside is so much greater than the downside risks.
Additional disclosure: I am long VRNG warrants.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/862881-vringo-warrants-offer-an-amazing-asymmetrical-trade?source=email_rt_article_title&ifp=0
Sunergy Appoints New Country Administrator For Sierra Leone And Discusses 2012 Operations and Finance Plans in Preparation fo...
PrintAlert
Sunergy, Inc. (QB) (USOTC:SNEY)
Intraday Stock Chart
Today : Wednesday 12 September 2012
Sunergy Appoints New Country Administrator For Sierra Leone And Discusses 2012 Operations and Finance Plans in Preparation for Resuming Operating Activities PR Newswire
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Sept. 12, 2012
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Sept. 12, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Sunergy, Inc. (the "Company") (OTCQB: SNEY) is pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Hans Strand to the position of Country Administrator in Sierra Leone, West Africa. Mr. Strand received his education in Germany and has lived in Napa, Ca. since 1991. He is a highly motivated professional with extensive background in the construction and manufacturing industry. He has excellent communication and interpersonal skills, combined with extensive construction management experience. He has been the owner of several construction businesses and excels at developing new business. He has substantial experience in operating heavy equipment and in the concrete and gravel pumping business. His long term and trusted relationship with Garrett Hale, Sunergy Advisory Board Member and Director of Sunergy's subsidiary in Sierra Leone, allows for a significant level of responsibility to be placed on his shoulders as our Country Administrator. Mr. Strand is interested in earning equity in our company as an incentive to optimizing our operations.
Company President, CFO Larry Bigler, CPA comments: "In keeping with management's commitment to bring professional grade personnel to all our operations, Mr. Strand demonstrates the qualities and experience to become an effective Country Administrator. It is very important to have someone like Hans to coordinate all our business and make certain the operations information is provided to Sunergy in a timely and accurate manner so we may easily keep our filing requirements current."
Mohammed El Tayyib Bah, Country Director, Sierra Leone says: "I am pleased to have the assistance of a professional operations leader to enable us to run an efficient and transparent mining operation in Sierra Leone. As we have an eye to grow our overall operations this year, Hans will enable us to do so in a professional manner. Hans should be a good compliment to Wilfred Ullrich, our dredge master and Chief of Operations, as they both share the desire to excel at whatever they do."
2012 Operations
With the appointment of Mr. Strand, Sunergy is now preparing to start its 4th quarter 2012 operations in the next few weeks. We have targeted some initial operations that will not be adversely affected by the rainy season for the balance of this year and we will have a head start on the regular operating season once the rains subside. This year we will establish a pilot plant recovery facility to process our sands for gold recovery, Ree's and other marketable product separation while establishing a resource category of minable material along the Pampana River.
Finance Plans:
Management is cognizant of the potential dilutive effect of financing and is pleased to report that on July 16, 2012, 344,427,460 Warrants that had not been exercised expired. These Warrants were issued in January 2010 for the Allied acquisition, additional private placements and to Management and operations personnel. All Warrants were extended for an additional 6 months from their respective expiry dates in January 2012. All 439,142,487 remaining Warrants are priced from $0.005 to $0.007 and will expire on their respective maturity dates if not exercised. Should they be exercised, over $2,400,000 could be realized in new financing. $211,580 was received from the exercise of 57,332,500 Warrants over the last several months.
We have budgeted around $100,000 on operations in Sierra Leone between October and December 31, 2012 on our 140 sq. km. Pampana River gold and Ree's concession. During Q1 and Q2 of 2013 we have budgeted around $350,000 for both the Pampana operation and other targeted growth projects currently in our sights.
These funds will be raised through a combination of private placements for restricted shares, at a later date, favorable short term cash loans as we have done in the past and gold debentures given $1,700/oz. gold prices. This year's operations will involve cash flow from the recoverable gold from our stockpile and from new material recovered in this year's operations. We estimate the Pilot Plant operation will commence in Q1 2013. This will minimize audit challenges for 2012 and we want to expand our stockpile significantly prior to start-up of the pilot plant in order to optimize operating efficiency for a better and more representative economic result.
More news to follow or this and other Company operations.
Please visit the Sunergy website www.sunergygold.com and review further information such as Company Reports under Projects , Previous Press Releases and SEC filing information under "Investor Info".
Our management team including our Directors, Advisory Board members and on ground management teams have more than 150 years of mining industry experience with junior and mid-tier companies involved in exploration, development and production of precious metals worldwide.
About Sunergy: The Company is an aggressive junior mining exploration and development Company that is production oriented at the earliest possible profitable opportunity. We control 100% of the 150 SQ. Km. Nyinahin mining concession with a full prospecting license in Ghana, West Africa and the 140.1 sq. km. Pampana River Rare Earth, Gold and Diamond concession in Sierra Leone, West Africa. We are currently operating dredges on the Pampana Project. We are production and acquisition oriented and are considering several additional projects suitable for near term production in West Africa.
Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This current report contains "forward-looking statements," as that term is defined in Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Statements in this press release which are not purely historical are forward-looking statements and include any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future, including but not limited to, any mineralization, development or exploration of the Nyinahin and Pampana Mining Concessions.
Actual results could differ from those projected in any forward-looking statements due to numerous factors. Such factors include, among others, the inherent uncertainties associated with mineral exploration and difficulties associated with obtaining financing on acceptable terms. We are not in control of metals prices and these could vary to make development uneconomic. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release, and we assume no obligation to update the forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the beliefs, plans, expectations and intentions contained in this press release are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions will prove to be accurate. Investors should consult all of the information set forth herein and should also refer to the risk factors disclosure outlined in our most recent annual report for our last fiscal year, our quarterly reports, and other periodic reports filed from time-to-time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Contact: Investor Relations:
Steve Parent 480.326.5435 steve@sunergygold.com
Larry Bigler, President, cpa@larrybigler.com
Sunergy, Inc 14362 N. Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd, Scottsdale. AZ 85260 480 477 5810
SOURCE Sunergy, Inc.
Trying to figure what exactly happened with EnhydrisPECorp blog.
It seems that they did put the blog about GOOG vs VRNG settlement. Then they twitted:
EnhydrisPECorp
$VRNG case has moved into settlement phase stks.co/hAw4
Sep. 11 at 11:20 PM
Next they tweeted:
EnhydrisPECorp
$VRNG our blog was attacked right after posting about the settlement and the story was deleted...just reposted
Sep. 11 at 11:24 PM
So, their blog about settlement was legit. They reposted it again.
Next tweet:
EnhydrisPECorp
$VRNG...Warning, my accounts have been hacked. Just got in and saw this. Please disregard. Had to pull the blog and email account.
Sep. 12 at 7:28 AM
They pulled the blog after finding out they were hacked. They posted the settlement blog twice according to them. Someone didn't want anyone to see it and hacked it. That's my take.
Why Vringo Is A Buy: Supreme Court Precedent Trumps All
September 12, 2012 | 7 commentsby: Icarus Falling | about: VRNG, includes: GOOG
The Modernist is at it again writing another article relating to legal precedent as it may impact the Vringo ("VRNG") v. Google ("GOOG") patent case.
The Modernist starts his most recent article by stating:
In rebuttal to my article, a fellow Seeking Alpha Contributor claimed two things. One: that my case is not relevant to software patent law. And two: that a different software patent law case dealing with admissibility of prior art is more relevant.
Let us start with number two as it is an erroneous characterization of what my previous article stated. Yes, I did persuasively argue that a different Supreme Court case was more relevant than the case cited by the Modernist, but the case I cited did not deal with admissibility of prior art, it dealt with the standard of proof the defendant in that case would need to overcome to prove the invalidity of the patent based on a prior art defense. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 180 L. Ed. 2d 131 (2011). The Supreme Court held:
Under § 282 of the Patent Act of 1952, "[a] patent shall be presumed valid" and "[t]he burden of establishing in-validity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity." 35 U.S.C. § 282. We consider whether § 282 requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. We hold that it does
This is the standard that Google will have to overcome either on summary judgment or at trial. The Modernist is free to believe that Google can meet this standard and be victorious. However, instead of making that case, the Modernist describes the issue as a red herring "peripheral issue of admissibility" and therefore he refuses to even address it. The Modernist is wrong on both fronts. The issue of prior art is anticipated to be the core issue of Google's entire defense as to the invalidity of Vringo's patents. It is neither a red herring nor a peripheral issue. To prevail, Google will have to show 1 of 2 things. Either Google will have to show that Vringo's patents are invalid based on Google's prior art, or Google will have to show that it is not infringing Vringo's patents. The Microsoft case relates directly to the burden Google faces on defense number 1.
So when the Modernist concludes his article by stating "Yes, Vringo's patents were obviously considered valid by the USPTO to be granted. But real validity is established in court. The Supreme Court supersedes everything else" I am confused as to whether he is making my point or his? That is exactly right. It is for the court to decide and Supreme Court precedent does supersede everything else. What that means here, is that according to Supreme Court precedent, because the USPTO already issued the patents to Vringo and they were aware of the Culliss patents at the time Vringo's patents were issued, to overcome the patents presumption of validity, Google will have to show by clear and convincing evidence that Vringo's patents are not valid. This is a very high standard.
Next, I never said that the case cited by the Modernist is not relevant to software patent law. Read my article again. The original claim made by the Modernists that I was that the Mayo case was "the only recent Supreme Court decision relating to software patent law." This was and is not true. I stated that the Modernist was "incorrect to characterize the Mayo decision as relating to software patent law." I then went on to accurately describe the Mayo decision. Does anyone who read the case believe that it relates to software patent law? There is a big difference between "relevant" and "relating to" and the Modernist attempts to use these words interchangeably to support his misguided arguments.
Any case which deals with patent law can of course be relevant to any other case that deals with patent law. However, the analogy between the Mayo case and the current Vringo v. Google case fails. The issue is not whether the Mayo decision was a software patent decision (which it was not despite the Modernists claim to the contrary), but more to the point whether it was a prior art decision. It was neither. So Mayo interpreted an inapplicable section of patent law and then applied it to an inapplicable field. That is why I believe it will have limited relevance to the outcome of the Vringo v. Google litigation.
Based on the clear and convincing standard that Google will need to overcome, I continue to believe that Vringo is a good buying opportunity.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/861831-why-vringo-is-a-buy-supreme-court-precedent-trumps-all?source=email_rt_article_title&ifp=0
Don't think anyone pays any attention to Modernist articles by now. I don't even care what he says - it makes no sense anyway.
All I know is that we closed green. So, if there were any leaks - they were not negative. Should get interesting soon.
1:43 PM Vringo (VRNG +4.9%) pops in response to a column from SA's Icarus Falling. The author is skeptical of arguments Google could get a summary judgment that would dismiss Vringo's suit against the search giant on account of prior art. Though a trial is scheduled to start on Oct. 15, Google still hasn't requested a summary judgment, and a Feb. 15 scheduling order suggests the district court handling the case isn't inclined to grant one. (Read the comments on this)
http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/528181?source=email_rt_mc_readmore&ifp=0
Yep. You are correct. This was from their last blog:
Over the past week or so, EPE has divulged some of our due diligence on Vringo, Inc. to the investment community. As we would like to get back to posting about biotechnology companies (our core area of expertise), we offer one last Vringo post to our readers with a few interesting tidbits. The remainder of our due diligence will remain private.
Interesting...
Whoever wrote this blog. Here is the link: http://enhydrispe.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Vringo case update
The telephone conference has been moved from September 6th to September 11th at 11:30 am. Our sources are hearing rumors that a settlement is indeed close, and this is the reason for the delay, i.e., to give the parties time to hammer out a general settlement to be discussed via telephone conference with the Magistrate. If a settlement cannot be reached, the motion hearing will go ahead as planned.
UPDATE: Docket filings just updated. Google claims to be readying a motion for Summary Judgement.
http://enhydrispe.blogspot.com/
It halted? No trades since open?
EDIT: I guess not - it did not trade for first 5 minutes though
Early alert:
AGIJ
You are watching and witnessing live a fight between the hedge funds that play with company stock and do as they see fit and a determined company inspirations to increase its share price. The DTCC chill was removed on Aug 17. The Broker / Dealers do their reconciling at the end of the month. Clearly and in our opinion there is "no fundamental reason" for the recent stagnation or sideways trading that is occurring with AGIJ, where is seems to be "boxed in" at 0005 and 0007 range!
AGIJ has recently experienced what we believe to be an unwarranted weakness in the price of its securities. "With important recent product introductions, contracts, DTCC Chill removal merger / buy out talks and a new accredited investors stepping up to the plate in funding AGIJ via preferred shares and company converting all debt to equity providing the company ample access to growth and capital, we have never been more confident about the company's shares and prospects" - We are advised that Q2 financials for AGIJ - will be ready for upload to OTC Markets today
I like to read posts from knowledgeable people that are not pumpers or dumpers and make valid and educational posts. Here is a thread from yahoo board that really makes lots of sense without any hype:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=110816&tid=46649&mid=46649&tof=2&rt=2&frt=2&off=1
Finally! Some awesome and meaty news.
Long and Strong. GO SNEY!