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.
BUYER:
Hudson Bay IP Opportunities Master Fund LP
I like that!
Oh ok :) just wanted to be clear I have no hidden agenda except to see this through and make money
Here is the latest from Pacer hope it comes out good:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND
ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.’S
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY NON-INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Pursuant to the August 6, 2012, Joint Scheduling Statement (D.I. 27) and the
Court’s August 13, 2012, September 25, 2012, and November 26, 2012 Orders (D.I. 29, D.I. 35,
and D.I. 40, respectively) modifying the Joint Scheduling Statement, Defendants Activision
Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. and Activision Publishing, Inc. (collectively
“Activision”), provide the following Second Supplemental Preliminary Non-Infringement
Contentions.1 Activision submits that none of the asserted claims are infringed by Activision.
Activision notes that this action is in its early stages of discovery, these contentions are
preliminary in nature, and the Court’s order concerning the Joint Scheduling Statement provides
1 On December 3, 2012, Activision served its Preliminary Non-Infringement Contentions and
Exhibits 1-8 regarding Worlds, Inc.’s (“Worlds”) infringement allegations of United States
Patents Nos. 7,181,690 (“the ‘690 patent”), 7,493,558 (“the ‘558 patent”), 7,945,856 (“the ‘856
patent”), and 8,082,501 (“the ’501 patent”). On December 20, 2012, Activision served its First
Supplemental Preliminary Non-Infringement Contentions and Exhibits 9-10 regarding Worlds’
infringement allegations of United States Patent No. 8,145,998 (“the ‘998 patent”).
2
33921005_1
for the possibility of amending and supplementing these Noninfringement Contentions.
Accordingly, Activision might further supplement, amend, and/or modify these contentions as
this action proceeds.
I. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
On September 21, 2012, Worlds, Inc. (“Worlds”) served Activision with Worlds’
Preliminary Disclosure of the Claims Infringed (“Worlds’ Infringement Contentions”) alleging
infringement of the following claims of United States Patents Nos. 7,181,690 (“the ‘690 patent”),
7,493,558 (“the ‘558 patent”), 7,945,856 (“the ‘856 patent”), 8,082,501 (“the ’501 patent”), and
8,145,998 (“the ‘998 patent”) (collectively the “patents-in-suit”):
? ‘690 patent claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and
20;
? ‘558 patent claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9;
? ‘856 patent claim 1;
? ‘501 patent claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (World of Warcraft only), 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and
16 (World of Warcraft only); and
? ‘998 patent claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (World of Warcraft only),
18, 19, 20, and 21.
Activision’s Second Supplemental Preliminary Non-Infringement Contentions do
not address any claims not asserted in Worlds’ Infringement Contentions. To the extent that the
Court permits Worlds to supplement, amend, and/or modify its contentions or to assert additional
claims against Activision in the future, Activision might seek to supplement, amend, and/or
modify its responses to Worlds’ contentions.
Furthermore, Activision’s contentions are based on what Activision believes to be
the correct constructions for the claim terms in each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit.
To the extent that the Court adopts a construction different than the constructions contemplated
3
33921005_1
by these contentions, Activision might seek to supplement, amend, and/or modify these
contentions.
II. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
Worlds has alleged that Activision has infringed, either directly or indirectly, and
either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the patents-in-suit by Activision’s
manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and use of their Call of Duty and World of Warcraft products
(“the Accused Products”) in the United States. Activision’s Call of Duty and World of Warcraft
products include numerous titles, versions, and other variations of the games across many
different platforms. Worlds alleges infringement of “all titles (and all versions thereof), across all
platforms (e.g., PC, Playstation 3, Xbox 360)” for the Call of Duty and World of Warcraft
products. However, Exhibits A-J of Worlds’ Infringement Contentions only provide charts
directed to one version of Call of Duty and one version of World of Warcraft. To the extent that
Worlds asserts infringement against all titles and versions across all platforms of Call of Duty
and World of Warcraft, Worlds is required to set forth its infringement theories regarding each
title and each version or variation for each platform. Accordingly, Activision is unable to
respond to Worlds’ infringement allegations against the Accused Products for which Worlds has
not provided charts. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Activision submits that none of the asserted
claims are infringed by any title, version, or variation of the Accused Products for any platform.
Should Worlds supplement its Infringement Contentions to provide charts for each title and
version or variation of the Accused Products for each platform, Activision might supplement,
amend, and/or modify these contentions.
In addition, to the extent that Worlds seeks to assert infringement of the patentsin-
suit against any products other than Activision’s Call of Duty and World of Warcraft
products, Activision objects to the inclusion of such products in this suit as improper.
4
33921005_1
III. ACTIVISION’S RESPONSE TO WORLDS’ INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Notwithstanding the deficiencies of Worlds’ Infringement Contentions raised
herein and to the extent that Activision understands Worlds’ Infringement Contentions,
Activision has provided an explanation in its Second Supplemental Exhibits 1-10 for why it
believes that it does not infringe any of the asserted claims. In addition to the arguments set
forth in its Second Supplemental Exhibits 1-10, Activision contends that its Call of Duty
products do not infringe the asserted claims requiring a “server,” “server process,” “central
server process,” and/or “server computer.”
Furthermore, despite having had access to Activision’s source code since
December 3, 2012 (see Section IV below), Worlds has not yet supplemented its Infringement
Contentions to contain specific citations to the source code. In their current form, Worlds’
Infringement Contentions are wholly deficient as they are based on “information and belief” and
mere guesswork as to how the Accused Products operate. Accordingly, should Worlds amend its
contentions to include citations to Activision’s source code, Activision might seek to
supplement, amend, and/or modify its contentions.
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
As a general matter, Worlds’ Infringement Contentions lack sufficient
information concerning Worlds’ interpretations of the asserted claims. Construction of the
claims is a necessary predicate to conducting an infringement analysis. Indeed, to make a prefiling
determination of infringement, Worlds must have construed the asserted claims and
compared those claims, on an element-by-element basis, with the Accused Products. If Worlds
provides more information about how it construes the asserted patent claims in connection with
its infringement claims, either in connection with the claim construction proceedings or
otherwise, Activision might supplement, amend, and/or modify these contentions.
5
33921005_1
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Activision believes that it does not infringe the asserted claims of
the patents-in-suit.
B. INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
Worlds states in its contentions that it “knows of no specific limitations of the
asserted claims where infringement depends on equivalents.” (Worlds’ Infringement
Contentions, p. 3). Worlds also generally asserts that “if there are any differences between the
claim elements in the aforementioned claims and the accused systems or methods, the
differences are insubstantial and infringement would exist under the doctrine of equivalents.” (Id.
at p. 4). Worlds does not provide any specificity as to how or why the Accused Products would
infringe the asserted claims under the doctrine of equivalents.
Should Worlds amend its contentions to add any specific allegations of
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, Activision might supplement, amend, and/or
modify its contentions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Activision believes it does not infringe,
either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any of the asserted claims of the patents-insuit.
C. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
Worlds’ Infringement Contentions also lack sufficient information concerning
Worlds’ grounds for alleging direct and indirect infringement. Worlds makes only a general
allegation on pages 2-3 of its Infringement Contentions that Activision “directly and indirectly”
infringes the claims of the patents-in-suit. Worlds does not provide any specificity beyond these
allegations as to why or how Activision “directly” and/or “indirectly” infringes the patents-insuit.
Moreover, Worlds does not specify on a claim-by-claim basis which claims it asserts that
Activision infringes under a theory of direct infringement, joint infringement, induced
infringement, and/or contributory infringement.
6
33921005_1
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Activision believes it does not infringe, either
directly or indirectly, any of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. Should Worlds amend its
contentions regarding its theories of direct and indirect infringement, Activision might
supplement, amend, and/or modify its contentions.
IV. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Joint Scheduling Statement ¶ 4.B (D.I. 27), as of December 3,
2012, Activision has made and will continue to make available for inspection source code
relating to the Accused Products that is sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s)
or method(s) that Worlds identified in its preliminary infringement disclosure. The source code
is available for inspection at the following locations in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulated Protective Order (D.I. 39):
Source Code relating to World of Warcraft:
Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
16215 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618
Source Code relating to Call of Duty:
Activision Blizzard, Inc.
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.
Santa Monica, California 90405
V. ONGOING DISCOVERY AND DISCLOSURES
Discovery in this action is at an early stage, and Activision’s investigation is
ongoing. Activision might seek to supplement, amend, and/or modify the positions taken and
information disclosed in these charts including, without limitation, the grounds of noninfringement
set forth herein, to take into account information or defenses that may come to light
as a result of these continuing efforts.
7
33921005_1
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: March 12, 2013
Yeah, I will go on there in a few and post anything new
New edva posting on Yahoo:
WDDD: What New Patents Really Mean There has been a lot of talk about what the additional patents mean. They are not patents that will affect the case as currently filed. WDDD can file a new (but related) case including additional patents granted since the original filing of the suit. In my opinion the reason to do this is not only to buttress the current suit but to expand the litigation against Activision. Activision isthe ten ton gorilla in the MMO space so they intend to bring absolutely everything to bear against them-that much is becoming crystal clear. In this respect were they to get a settlement or a jury verdict future defendants would fall quickly. For the record my group has now purchased well into the seven figures in terms of sharesand growing. I am studying two other cases as of this writing but the more research I do on Mr. Kidrin and his patents the more I like the position.
Thanks CBStock67 were there alot of big trades going off?
Seeking alpha doesn't publish articles for stocks under $1. So until we reach that Mark they will all be instablogs on there unfortunately with less of an audience
Celtics I don't see the stickies up there anymore either if you have time can you sticky the good articles again
Thanks. I liked the article yesterday wish he woulda mentioned wddd I commented on the article telling him about worlds hopefully we get some more eyes off that article
Agree I say pre-markman $2. Also there will be a new article or instablog out tomorrow from princetonatty44 on seeking alpha on the value of the different pre markman plays and valuations, should be as great article
Amen! This board is getting cluttered up with a lot of crap lately and all the good dd everyone has done is getting buried let's keep this board intelligent
Nothing can go straight up we need days like this to make our next leg up stronger we should settle over .40 to end the day
Worlds Inc. (WDDD) Making A Move
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/5378541-edva/1598651-worlds-inc-wddd-making-a-move
New edva article out this morning:
I have had several people email me in the past couple of days asking about the recent rise in Worlds Inc. (WDDD.OB) and what could be expected from here. In early January I mentioned it in a Yahoo post as an attractive patent play for those looking to diversify a little from the likes of VRNG, VHC, PRKR and...well you get the idea. The reason WDDD caught my eye is at a price of .21 with an attractive share structure and a relatively low float (confirmed by Worlds CEO Thom Kidrin in an interview with joenatural here-make sure to read down to the update in the comments section) combined with the prospect of a total award in the $500M range, this appeared to be a prospector's dream. At a closing price of .44 Wednesday the market would seem to agree. Worlds currently has 82M shares outstanding with only 100M authorized. Having recently raised over $300K Mr. Kidrin states the company has enough cash for the next 12 months. Since the venerable firm of Susman Godfrey has taken Worlds' case on a contingency basis, it appears the cost of operations are little more than SEC filing fees, modest salaries, consulting and administrative.
In their lawsuit against Activision, Worlds cites no less than 59 claims of infringement across a handful of patents in the Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game space (MMORPG). Remember that for a finding of infringement only one claim need be infringed. Note: One of the things that I look for is who does the original prosecution of the patents. That patent work was done by Townsend, Townsend and Crew, a well respected and first-rate boutique IP firm out of San Francisco (now Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP). In short Worlds created the ability for people, hundreds of thousands of people in fact, through player/Avatars, to enter a 3-D 'World' where they could play in the same game together seamlessly.
One of the things that stands out in evaluating WDDD's future prospects (since no one likes a one trick pony) is the realization that to play a MMORPG game it appears one must use the technology created by Worlds Inc. Thus there are many other potential infringers beyond Activision in a space of some $13b annually. Mr. Kidrin mentioned in an interview that he expected the District Court in Massachusetts to schedule a trial (if necessary) within 8 months of the Markman Hearing which puts the date somewhere in the first half of 2014. Interestingly, The District Court adopted rule 16.6 in 2008 to better streamline patent cases and in-so-doing has made Massachusetts a more inviting home for Patent litigants.
Demand for the stock is compelling and the volume on successive days this week has been over 2 Million shares which marks the most ever for the company. WDDD has an all important Markman Hearing coming up on June 27th where in a majority of cases the party that prevails in such hearings often prevails in the litigation.My own take is that Worlds was undervalued from the start and in many ways that stems from lack of recognition by investors. Worlds is a very small company that had struggled to survive for many years but which has developed technology that it appears numerous companies are making billions from. It is now ready for its long awaited day in court. And before you label Worlds a patent troll please understand that the original Worlds patents were created by Worlds employees or those under contract with Worlds to do so.
One thing that it appears investors are beginning to realize is that there is limited risk in a pre-Markman stock. By way of example many people (including me and those I work with) are awaiting Judge Jackson's final post-trial rulings in the Vringo v. Google case at the time of this writing. That is far from a risk-free trading zone. While I expect the Judge to affirm the jury's verdict and the stock to ultimately find a home far north of where it is, a ruling for Google's motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to infringement, for example, would be disastrous for Vringo and its shareholders (at least near-term and the battle would be uphill from there). Worlds does not face such peril at this time and is not likely to until we await the results of the Markman Hearing which are likely to come at end of July.
So what would a Markman win mean for Worlds? I'm guessing we could see a valuation of some $200-250M as the court will have sent its strongest signal as to how it will determine things at trial. I think we could see half of that number leading to June 27th because people by their nature are more optimistic in these cases, especially when they see attorneys of the caliber of Max Tribble (lead counsel for Susman Godfrey in the Worlds case) lining up to face down the likes of Activision.I won't do it here because others have done it so well elsewhere, but do a little diligence on Max and on Susman Godfrey in general and you will know what I'm talking about. None of this is to say that Worlds case is a slam dunk, far from it, but given what I have seen thus far I like their chances.
Disclosure: I am long WDDD.OB, VRNG.
Additional disclosure: This instablog is published for informational purposes only and the author advises anyone interested in any of the companies mentioned to do their own due diligence or speak with a qualified investment professional prior to investing in these or any other companies.
I just checked out the pacer on the NCSoft case the Markman Hearing was set for August 25th 2010 in the February 17th 2010 (69) Scheduling order. Then at an April 23rd hearing this came out (78):
Plaintiff Worlds.com Inc. (“Worlds”) and Defendant NCsoft Corp. (“NCsoft”),hereby jointly submit this Joint Supplemental Status Report.The parties entered into a final settlement agreement with an effective date of April 15, 2010. The parties are fulfilling the terms of the agreement and expect to file a stipulation of dismissal no later than May 6, 2010. In the unlikely event that the parties do not file a stipulation of dismissal, the parties will submit a supplemental joint status report by that date.
So it looks like they decided to come to an agreement 4 months before the Markman hearing which never happened because of settlement from what I found on pacer
Yeah top 20 today getting more eyes everyday
http://thelion.com/bin/forum.cgi?cmd=most_searched
Number 15 so far on the ihub most read boards today
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/most_read.aspx
Great Day and Week! Momentum is starting to build chart looks great
One very interesting comment from Princetonatty44 in response to yesterday's SA article from Enhydris PE mentions that Vringo could look to add significant additional value by acquiring under funded companies with potential goldmine patents. Specifically he cites Worlds Inc. (WDDD.OB) which I first alerted investors to on January 4th of this year. Worlds is suing Activision Blizzard (ATVI) for infringing on its technology in the wildly popular (and profitable) World of Warcraft and Call of Duty game franchises. The patented technology allows thousands of players to operate at one time in a 3-D virtual world. Activison and other Massively Multiple Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) makers all use similar technology (very similar to how most if not all in "search" use Lang's technology) so at .21/share and a Markman Hearing in June of this year, it is not hard to conceive Worlds approaching $1 in the next several months. Should Vringo decide to acquire a company with a Worlds type profile, that company would shoot the moon overnight. By way of disclosure my group has a significant position in Worlds Inc. which we intend to hold through the Markman Hearing.
They can run the company out of an igloo at the North Pole doesnt mean there is no money to be made here. Know when to get in and get out
It looks like we are starting to come up on some radars, I see a few people on Twitter today too putting it on watch
http://www.thelion.com/bin/aio_msg.cgi?cmd=search&symbol=WDDD
And in the Top 10 on the most searched stocks on that site:
http://www.thelion.com/bin/forum.cgi?cmd=most_searched
Postyle and Rainmaker great points!!
"Some get it and are ready to ride the speculative wave"
Yeah only 11k filed at .23 have to move it up a bit only ended up getting 106k
Order complete! Now hopefully we start the runup into markman hearing...
I have an order in for 110k shares for tomorrow morning, well see if it gets filled!
I think he's talking about this article from couple of days ago:
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/1295011-r-s-analytics/1446421-will-this-company-s-patent-portfolio-make-it-a-ten-bagger
Rainmaker- When does the markman hearing start? Thanks just looking into this stock from Vringo board
Saw this about TRIT going private?
http://stocknews2012.blogspot.com/
Saw this about TRIT going private?
http://stocknews2012.blogspot.com/
Any truth to this?
http://tradingfever.blogspot.com/
Pacer Update Tuesday Evening:
This is a huge one if the Judge grants this one watch out here it is:
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S
MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF POST-JUDGMENT ROYALTIES
This Court, having considered Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s Motion for An Award of Post-
Judgment Royalties, hereby ORDERS that the motion is GRANTED as follows:
Defendants’ are hereby required to pay I/P Engine ongoing royalties computed on a base
of 20.9% of Defendants’ U.S. AdWords revenues, at a running royalty rate of 7% of that base.
Defendants shall pay ongoing royalties quarterly to I/P Engine in certified funds or by
wire transfer, accompanied by a statement certifying under penalty of perjury the U.S. revenue
attributable to Defendants’ use of AdWords in dollars and the calculation of the royalty amount.
Defendants shall make such payment and provide the required statement to I/P Engine no
later than 14 days after the end of each calendar quarter. If the payment is not timely made,
Defendants shall pay a penalty consisting of 5% of the quarterly royalty owed, plus interest at the
2
average prime interest rate, as reported by the Federal Reserve (consistent with I/P Engine’s prejudgment
interest request). I/P Engine shall have the right to request audits of such revenue
figures, by Defendants providing its records to I/P Engine’s designated auditor.
They havent rejected anything yet Vringo just replied to them yesterday and its over 400 pages of information will probably take them awhile
Mail Room Date Document Code Document Description Document Category Page Count
11-26-2012 IDS (IDS) Form (SB08) PROSECUTION 5
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 11
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 1
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 16
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 9
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 88
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 2
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 7
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 23
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 46
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 42
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 46
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 24
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 15
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 220
11-26-2012 NPL Non Patent Literature PROSECUTION 129
11-26-2012 N417 EFS Acknowledgment Receipt PROSECUTION 4
Just says it on the top of the case info
:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Raymond A. Jackson, presiding
Tommy E. Miller, referral
Date filed: 09/15/2011
Date terminated: 11/20/2012
Date of last filing: 11/21/2012
Also on Pacer on the top for case info it says this:
Date Filed: 09/15/2011
Date Terminated: 11/20/2012
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
New Pacer Update:
AOL INC., et. al.,
Defendants.
Norfolk Division FILED
NOV 2 0 2012
CLERK, USDISTRICT COURT
NORFOLK. VA
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER: 2:llcv512
[X] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for atrial by jury. The issues have
been tried and the juryhas rendered itsverdict.
[ ] Decision by Court. This action came for determination before the Court. The issues
have been considered and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff, I/P Engine, Inc., recover of
defendant, Google, Inc., the sum of Fifteen Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars and 00/100
($15,800,000.00). The Running Royalty Rate is 3.5%.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.,
recover of defendant AOL, Inc., the sum of Seven Million Nine Hundred Forty-Three Thousand
Dollars and 00/100 ($7,943,000.00).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.,
recover of defendant IAC Search &Media, Inc., the sum of Six Million Six Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($6,650,000.00).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.,
recover of defendant Gannett Co., Inc., the sum ofFour Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Two
Dollars and 00/100 ($4,322.00).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.,
recover of defendant Target Corp., the sum ofNinety-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-
Three Dollars and 00/100 ($98,833.00).
Date: November
Pacer Update:
MEMORANDUMORDER
At issue is whether the Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the '420 Patent and the '664 Patent are obvious and thus invalid. As part ofthe jury verdict
form, the Court posed interrogatories to the jury to resolve any factual disputes underlying the
question ofnonobviousness. Neither party objected to the Court's posing of interrogatories to
the jury on factual questions underlying nonobviousness. By stipulation, the parties agreed as to
both the '420 Patent and the '664 Patent that the level of ordinary skill in the field that someone
would have had at the time the claimed invention was made is "an individual with abachelor's
degree in computer science with at least 2years of experience." The jury returned averdict
making underlying factual determinations on nonobviousness.
Specifically, with respect to the '420 patent, the jury found that "[n]o prior art applies
because (1) the Bowman and Culliss references identified by Defendants lack any content
analysis and filtering for relevance to the query and (2) other references identified by Defendants
relate to profile system that do not disclose atightly integrated search systems and could not
filter information relevant to the query." As to the question ofwhether there were any
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art at the time ofthe claimed invention,
the Jury found that "[t]he Bowman and CuUiss references did not disclose either limitation (b) (a
content-based filter and could not filter information relevant to the query or (d) (combining
feedback data with content profile data) of independent claims 10 and 25. The other asserted
references - Rose, Lashkari, and Fab, were profile systems that did not disclose atightly
integrated search system, and could not filter information relevant to the query."
As to the '664 Patent, the Jury found that "[n]o prior art applies because (1) the Bowman
and Culliss references identified by Defendants lack any content analysis and filtering for
relevance to the query and (2) other references identified by Defendants relate to profile system
that do not disclose atightly integrated search systems and could not filter information relevant
to the query." As to the question of whether there were any differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art at the time ofthe claimed invention, the Jury found that "[t]he
Bowman and Culliss references do not disclose limitation (c) ofthe independent claims 1and 26,
because those references do not have acontent-based filter that could not filter information
relevant to aquery, or combine information from afeedback system with content profile data.
The other asserted references - Rose, Lashkari, and Fab, were profile systems that did not
disclose atightly integrated search system, and could not filter information relevant to the
query."
Having considered the Jury's determinations, the Court finds that the Defendants have
failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the '420 Patent or the '664 Patent are
obvious. The Clerk isdirected to send copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
They could be trying to work out a settlement maybe thats why they are asking for an extension of time to file their response?
Pacer Update:
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CALCULATION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND
MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, POST-JUDGMENT
INTEREST, AND SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES FOR DEFENDANTS’ POSTDISCOVERY/
PRE-VERDICT INFRINGEMENT
The Defendants AOL Inc. (“AOL”), IAC Search & Media, Inc. (“IAC Search & Media”),
Gannett Co., Inc. (“Gannett”), Target Corporation (“Target”), and Google Inc. (“Google”)
(collectively “Defendants”), by counsel, pursuant to Rule 7 of the Local Rules of Practice for the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, move this Court for entry of an
order granting the Defendants an extension of time through and including November 29, 2012, in
which to file their Response to Plaintiff’s Notice of Calculation of Prejudgment Interest (Dkt.
No. 791) (“Notice of Calculation”) and Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Prejudgment Interest,
Post-Judgment Interest, and Supplemental Damages for Defendants’ Post-Discovery/Pre-Verdict
Infringement (Dkt. No. 792) (“Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest”), and in support
thereof state as follows:
2
1. Plaintiff filed its Notice of Calculation on November 7, 2012. Under Local Rule
7 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, Defendants’ response is due on November 21, 2012.
2. Plaintiff filed its Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest on November 9,
2012. Under Local Rule 7 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, Defendants’ response is due on November 23,
2012.
3. The Defendants have requested, and the Plaintiff has agreed to, an extension
through and including November 29, 2012, to file their response to the Plaintiff’s Motion for an
Award of Prejudgment Interest, Post-Judgment Interest, and Supplemental Damages for
Defendants’ Post-Discovery/Pre-Verdict Infringement.
4. Defendants will not oppose an extension until December 7, 2012, for Plaintiff to
file its replies in support of its Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of Prejudgment
Interest.
5. Granting Defendants an extension through and including November 29, 2012, to
file their responses to the Plaintiff’s Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of Prejudgment
Interest, and Plaintiff an extension through and including December 7, 2012 to file their replies
in support of its Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest will not
prejudice the parties.
6. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a proposed agreed order granting the Defendants through
and including November 29, 2012 to file their response to the Plaintiff’s Notice of Calculation
and Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest, and granting Plaintiff through and including
December 7, 2012 to file its replies in support of its Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award
of Prejudgment Interest. The parties are circulating a copy of this agreed order and will deliver it
to the Court for entry once endorsed.
3
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, by counsel, request that this Court enter the proposed
agreed order attached as Exhibit 1 granting the Defendants through and including November 29,
2012 to file their response to Plaintiff’s Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of
Prejudgment Interest, and granting Plaintiff through and including December 7, 2012, to file its
replies in support of its Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest.
Dated: November 19, 2012
Its not coming out right
PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE INC.’S NOTICE OF CALCULATION OF
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
As a prevailing plaintiff in a patent infringement action, I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) is
presumptively entitled to prejudgment interest on the damages awarded. As the Supreme Court
stated in General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 657 (1983), “prejudgment interest
should ordinarily be awarded absent some justification for withholding such an award.” No
justification exists for departing from the principle that prejudgment interest “is the rule, not the
exception” and “serves to make the patent owner whole, for damages properly include the
foregone use of money of which the patentee was wrongly deprived.” Sensonics, Inc. v.
Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see alsoEcolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569
F.3d 1335, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[w]hen a patentee asserts a patent claim that is held to be
valid and infringed, prejudgment interest is generally awarded.”). Only with the award of
prejudgment interest will I/P Engine be fully compensated for Defendants’ infringement of I/P
Engine’s patents.
Consistent with this Court’s decision in the ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon
Comms., Inc. 2011 WL 4899922, *6-7 (E.D.VA. 2011), I/P Engine requests that the Court award
2
prejudgment interest at the prime rate compounded quarterly from September 15, 2011 until the
date judgment is entered. I/P Engine’s calculation of prejudgment interest based upon the total
compensatory damages award set forth in Verdict Form, III.C. is $643,084. See Exhibit A,
attached hereto, for I/P Engine’s prejudgment-interest calculations.1
1 This calculation does not include any supplemental damages based upon an accounting of
Defendants’ pre-verdict infringing revenues from October 1, 2012 that were not covered by the
jury verdict. I/P Engine has requested but has not yet received that information from Defendants.
Interest at Prime Rate on Allocated Damages (compounded quarterly)
Quarter Ending Annual
Rate
Quarters Google AOL IAC Target Gannett Total
9/30/2011 3.25% 5 $23,483 $11,805 $9,884 $147 $6 $45,325
12/31/2011 3.25% 4 123,310 61,991
51,900 771 34 238,006
3/31/2012 3.25% 3 91,943 46,222
38,697 575 25 177,462
6/30/2012 3.25% 2 62,836 31,589
26,447 393 17 121,281
9/30/2012 3.25% 1 31,609 15,891
13,304 198 9 61,010
$333,181 $167,497 $140,231 $2,084 $91 $643,084
Do they usually finish everything same day? Earlier Mike said after they read verdict they would meet back at 2:30 then came back and were recessed for the day