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.
AXN Revs up 92%, EPS $.02, Revs $8.74M, Net $1.35M
VRINGO ANNOUNCES 2015 THIRD QUARTER RESULTS AND PROVIDES BUSINESS UPDATE
Vringo, Inc.
13 minutes ago
GlobeNewswire
????
NEW YORK - November 9, 2015 - Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices, today announced operating results for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 and filed its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, Vringo provided a business update.
Update on Global Enforcement and Licensing Activities
Courts in the United Kingdom and Germany have found that ZTE has infringed Vringo`s patents, and courts in Brazil, India, and Romania have awarded Vringo preliminary relief after finding ZTE prima facie liable for patent infringement. Courts around the world continue to comment on ZTE`s bad faith behavior and litigation tactics. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has found that ZTE has breached a non-disclosure agreement with Vringo by submitting confidential settlement discussion materials to the Chinese government, and Vringo has since alleged additional breaches. Vringo remains willing to license ZTE and all parties to its standard-essential patent portfolio on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.
Vringo recently commenced litigation on its Quantum Stream portfolio, which relates to content distribution, including the insertion of advertisements into video content.
In addition, Vringo recently entered into another licensing agreement relating to its remote monitoring portfolio, and continues its licensing efforts with regard to this portfolio.
Vringo anticipates several significant litigation events to occur in the first quarter of 2016
In the United States, Vringo awaits the resolution of its motion for sanctions against ZTE for its conduct in the litigation pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In Brazil, Vringo awaits the Court`s confirmation that ZTE violated the preliminary injunction, as previously concluded by court-appointed experts. Following the adjudication of a finding of violation of the injunction, the remedies may include monetary penalties, payable by ZTE to Vringo.
In India, Vringo`s motion to hold ZTE in contempt for underreporting sales in violation of a court order has been fully argued and is expected to be decided before the end of 2015.
Related Quotes
VRNG0.3150-4.63%
Vringo, Inc.
Watchlist
0.3150-0.0153(4.63%)
NASDAQ3:59 PM EST
VRINGO INC Files SEC form 8-K, Results of Operations and Financial Condition, Financial Statements and Exhibits EDGAR Online 14 mins ago
VRINGO INC Files SEC form 8-K, Regulation FD Disclosure, Financial Statements and Exhibits EDGAR Online 24 days ago
More
In the United Kingdom, beginning on January 18, 2016, the High Court of Justice is expected to hold a hearing to determine the remedy for ZTE`s infringement of the UK part of European Patent 1,212,919 ("EP 919"), which was found valid and infringed on November 28, 2014. The remedy will include complete license terms including payment for past damages and a running royalty. Vringo does not believe ZTE can design around this key patent.
In Germany, on February 25, 2016, the District Court of Dusseldorf is expected to hold the oral hearing in Vringo`s claim that ZTE has infringed the German part of EP 919. Previously, the German Patents Court held that EP 919 reads on handover between radio network controllers, a key part of the 3G infrastructure technology Vringo claims ZTE has commercialized without a license.
In Malaysia, on March 28, 2016, the High Court of Malaysia at Kuala Lumpur is expected to hold the trial on Vringo`s claim that ZTE has infringed Vringo`s Malaysian patent MY 142,706, which is the equivalent of the patent that is the basis for the preliminary injunction in Romania.
Recent Developments in Vringo`s Enforcement Actions Against ZTE
In Brazil and Romania, courts continue to reject ZTE`s challenges to the preliminary injunctions in place in those countries. ZTE has unsuccessfully challenged the preliminary injunctions eleven and twelve times, respectively. In Romania, ZTE`s latest challenge sought to overturn the preliminary injunction on the basis of the European Court of Justice ruling in Huawei v. ZTE, which outlined the factors to consider in determining whether the holder of a standard-essential patent abuses its dominant position in seeking injunctive relief against an alleged infringer. ZTE`s argument was rejected by the Romanian Court as ungrounded, with no further chance of appeal.
In China, ZTE has filed petitions for the re-examination of 33 of Vringo`s Chinese patents. To date, 17 of those patents have been maintained valid, 2 have been maintained valid-in-part, and 13 have been invalidated, and are pending appeal.
In the Netherlands, on October 28, 2015, the District Court of the Hague found the Dutch part of European Patent 1,186,119 ("EP 119") invalid. Previously, a German Court found that ZTE infringes the German part of EP 119, and issued an injunction against ZTE on the basis of that infringement. In addition, the German Patents Court previously released a preliminary opinion holding the German part of EP 119 valid, and both the Opposition Division and the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office have confirmed the validity of EP 119. Vringo plans to appeal the Dutch Court`s ruling.
In France, on October 30, 2015, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris held that the claims-in-suit of the French part of EP 119 are not implemented in the relevant standard, and that the claims-in-suit of the French part of European Patent 1,221,212 ("EP 212") are invalid. Vringo plans to appeal the Tribunal`s ruling.
Update on Recent Acquisition of International Development Group (IDG)
On October 15, 2015, Vringo acquired 100% of International Development Group, a holding company consisting of two primary businesses: fliCharge, a wire-free charging technology company, and Group Mobile, a market leading built-to-order supplier of rugged computers, mobile devices and accessories.
fliCharge
In conjunction with MITO Corporation, a leading importer and distributor of aftermarket products to the transportation industry, fliCharge launched ReVive, an innovative trimmable wire-free conductive charging system for the automotive and transportation aftermarkets, at SEMA, an international automotive trade show.
A group of 35 top automotive journalists from more than 20 countries selected the ReVive trimmable charging pad as the winner of two Global Media Awards at SEMA, signifying the appeal of fliCharge`s products to markets worldwide.
fliCharge introduced a 36-Watt, 12-Volt wire-free charging circuit board assembly for the automotive and transportation markets.
fliCharge and Bretford, a leading designer and manufacturer of furniture products, extended and expanded their licensing relationship such that Bretford will have an exclusive license to embed fliCharge`s wire-free charging solutions into furniture in markets including healthcare, commercial office, retail and educational facilities as well as contract furniture manufacturing.
Group Mobile
Group Mobile expanded its sales force to increase the company`s geographic footprint across the United States.
As part of Group Mobile`s integration into Vringo, Vringo has commenced the process of overhauling Group Mobile`s website and marketing strategy.
Group Mobile has also started pursuing key partnerships and additional product lines.
Operating Results for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2015
As of September 30, 2015, we had approximately $16.4 million in cash and court deposits as compared to $18.1 million as of December 31, 2014.
Our remaining outstanding balance on the senior secured convertible notes is $5.4 million as of September 30, 2015. We raised $12.5 million in May 2015 through the sale of the senior secured convertible notes.
During the nine month period ended September 30, 2015, our average monthly cash used in operating activities was approximately $1.5 million compared to approximately $2.2 million in the comparable period in 2014. Included in the year to date spend are prepaid expenses for annual insurance contract premiums and deposits with law firms representing us in the UK totaling approximately $0.9 million as well as deposits with courts made during 2015 in Romania and Germany of $0.3 million.
Our net loss for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 was approximately $11.9 million, including non-cash expenses, mainly attributable to the following:
Operating legal costs of $6.6 million in connection with ongoing litigations against ZTE Corporation, ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., and certain of their affiliates and customers, and other planned enforcements of our intellectual property;
General and administrative expenses excluding non-cash expenses of $1.2 million;
Non-cash expenses of $1.9 million related to equity-based compensation costs and amortization of our patents; and
Non-cash expenses of $2.2 million related to re-valuations of warrants and the conversion feature on the senior secured convertible notes, interest expense and extinguishment of debt.
On a per share basis, our total net loss from continuing operations was $0.12 per basic and diluted share for the quarter ended September 30, 2015, compared to a net loss of $0.13 per basic share and $0.16 per diluted share for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.
About Vringo, Inc.
Vringo, Inc. is engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices. Vringo`s intellectual property portfolio consists of over 600 patents and patent applications covering telecom infrastructure, internet search, ad-insertion, mobile and wire-free charging technologies. Vringo`s subsidiary fliCharge is dedicated to the licensing and commercialization of wire-free charging technologies. Vringo`s subsidiary Group Mobile is dedicated to the marketing and sale of rugged computing devices. For more information, visit: www.vringoip.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release includes forward-looking statements, which may be identified by words such as "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "should," "seeks," "future," "continue," or the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained herein. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to: our inability to license and monetize our patents, including the outcome of the litigation against ZTE and other companies; our inability to recognize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition of IDG, which may be affected by, among other things, competition, our ability to secure advantageous licensing and sales agreements, market acceptance of IDG`s technology, potential technology obsolescence, protection of intellectual property rights and potential liability risks that are inherent in the marketing and sale of products used by consumers; our inability to monetize and recoup our investment with respect to patent assets that we acquire; our inability to develop and introduce new products and/or develop new intellectual property; our inability to protect our intellectual property rights; new legislation, regulations or court rulings related to enforcing patents, that could harm our business and operating results; unexpected trends in the mobile phone and telecom infrastructure industries; our inability to raise additional capital to fund our combined operations and business plan; our inability to maintain the listing of our securities on a major securities exchange; the potential lack of market acceptance of our products; potential competition from other providers and products; our inability to retain key members of our management team; the future success of Infomedia and our ability to receive value from its stock; our ability to continue as a going concern; our liquidity and other risks and uncertainties and other factors discussed from time to time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), including our annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 16, 2015. Vringo expressly disclaims any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
Contacts:
Investors and Media:
Cliff Weinstein
Executive Vice President
Vringo, Inc.
646-532-6777
cweinstein@vringoinc.com
Yes, I did think we had a fair shot at getting a GVR from SCOTUS, and STILL believe it should have been granted. Didn't happen, but doesn't mean the chance didn't exist. Just another case SCOTUS turned a blind eye to, which isn't an unusual occurrence.
spookytrades Thursday, 10/29/15 08:47:22 AM
Re: rampuntzel post# 61819
Post # of 61830
yes but same person (JJS) thought we had a good chance at WOC to allow SCOTUS to right this wrong. Should have seen that was pipe dream... hard lessons learned here.... hard lessons for sure...
Got the Revive article from an email from Vringo this morning.
msl2008 Wednesday, 10/28/15 10:19:11 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61768
Post # of 61772
Where did you find this press release? It doesn't appear in their press release section.
VRINGO SUBSIDIARY FLICHARGE AND MITO INTRODUCE ReVIVE
The Most Powerful In-Vehicle Wire-Free Charging System for Automotive and Transportation Aftermarkets
NEW YORK — October 28, 2015 — Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices, today announced that its subsidiary, fliCharge, and MITO Corporation, a leading importer and distributor of aftermarket products to the transportation industry, have introduced ReVive, an innovative wire-free conductive charging system for the automotive and transportation aftermarkets.
The ReVive system can be installed in virtually any type of vehicle including cars, trucks, RVs, taxis, emergency vehicles and boats providing user-friendly and efficient wire-free conductive charging for smart phones, tablets and many other battery-operated devices. ReVive’s industry leading 36 watt 12 volt charging circuit is more than six times more powerful than the competing inductive car chargers and has enough power to charge several devices at the same time.
ReVive is supported by fliCharge enabled Apple and Samsung phone cases, universal adaptors for a wide number of electronic devices and charge pads for home, school and office.
"We have been searching for a true wire-free charging platform that can provide cost effective, powerful and highly efficient charging across multiple devices for today’s connected and mobile consumers," said Marvin Metzler, CEO of MITO. "To that end, we are excited to introduce fliCharge’s ReVive technology to our customers at SEMA, at the Las Vegas Convention Center from November third through the sixth."
"With a growing list of automotive manufacturers now using our technology, we are pleased to offer this exciting aftermarket product to all other car and vehicle owners," said Kevin Hibbard, Vice President of Product Development of fliCharge. "We are very excited about our partnership with MITO that will help to develop the fliCharge ecosystem into all areas of the mobile consumer’s life."
About Vringo, Inc.
Vringo, Inc. is engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices. Vringo's intellectual property portfolio consists of over 600 patents and patent applications covering telecom infrastructure, internet search, ad-insertion, mobile and wire-free charging technologies. Vringo’s subsidiary fliCharge is dedicated to the licensing and commercialization of wire-free charging technologies. Vringo’s subsidiary Group Mobile is dedicated to the marketing and sale of rugged computing devices. For more information, visit: www.vringo.com.
About MITO Corporation
Since 1974, MITO Corporation has been an importer/distributor supplying top quality products and top brand name solutions to the RV, marine, school bus, transit bus and specialty vehicle OEM and aftermarket industries. Over the years, MITO Corporation has established many exclusive vendor relationships with industry leading products including Gentex, HomeLink, Seiki, VIZIO, Clarion Corp of America, KICKER, Alpine Electronics, DUAL, Panasonic, and WiFi Ranger. MITO's proprietary products include Perimeter View observation systems, cameras and monitors, MITO RV and Marine speakers and accessory products. For more information about MITO Corporation, visit www.mitocorp.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release includes forward-looking statements, which may be identified by words such as "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "should," "seeks," "future," "continue," or the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained herein. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to: our inability to license and monetize our patents, including the outcome of the litigation against ZTE and other companies; our inability to recognize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition of IDG, which may be affected by, among other things, competition, our ability to secure advantageous licensing and sales agreements, market acceptance of IDG’s technology, potential technology obsolescence, protection of intellectual property rights and potential liability risks that are inherent in the marketing and sale of products used by consumers; our inability to monetize and recoup our investment with respect to patent assets that we acquire; our inability to develop and introduce new products and/or develop new intellectual property; our inability to protect our intellectual property rights; new legislation, regulations or court rulings related to enforcing patents, that could harm our business and operating results; unexpected trends in the mobile phone and telecom infrastructure industries; our inability to raise additional capital to fund our combined operations and business plan; our inability to maintain the listing of our securities on a major securities exchange; the potential lack of market acceptance of our products; potential competition from other providers and products; our inability to retain key members of our management team; the future success of Infomedia and our ability to receive value from its stock; our ability to continue as a going concern; our liquidity and other risks and uncertainties and other factors discussed from time to time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), including our annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 16, 2015. Vringo expressly disclaims any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
Investor and Media Contacts:
Cliff Weinstein
Executive Vice President
Vringo, Inc.
646-532-6777
cweinstein@vringoinc.com
Marvin Metzler
President & CEO
MITO Corporation
574-295-2441
VRINGO PROVIDES UPDATE ON CHALLENGES TO VALIDITY OF VRINGO PATENTS
NEW YORK – October 28, 2015 – Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices, today provided an update on ZTE’s challenges to the validity of Vringo’s patents in China and the Netherlands.
In China, the Patent Re-Examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China today, following an earlier oral hearing, upheld the validity of ZL200580013835.X in response to a re-examination request filed by ZTE. This patent is the Chinese equivalent of IN 243,980, which is currently being asserted against ZTE in India. This was ZTE’s second attempt to invalidate the patent, following ZTE’s withdrawal of its first re-examination request.
ZTE has filed re-examination requests for 33 of Vringo’s Chinese Patents. To date, 18 of those patents have been maintained valid, 2 have been maintained valid-in-part, and 13 have been found invalid, and are pending appeal.
In the Netherlands, today, the District Court of the Hague, the Netherlands has found the Dutch part of European Patent 1,186,119 (“EP 119”) invalid. Vringo plans to appeal today’s ruling.
On October 23, 2014, ZTE’s Dutch subsidiary filed a lawsuit asking the Court to declare the Dutch part of EP 119 invalid. Today, following a hearing on September 4, 2015, the Court granted ZTE’s request, finding the Dutch part of EP 119 invalid. This decision deviates from an earlier decision rendered by the President of the same Court, on October 24, 2014, rejecting ZTE’s invalidity arguments and affirming the seizure of ZTE’s products detained by Dutch customs under the Anti Piracy Regulation.
Previously, the validity of EP 119 was confirmed by both the Opposition Division and the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office, following opposition proceedings initiated by Qualcomm.
In Germany, Vringo continues to enforce an injunction against ZTE based on EP 119, which was issued by a German court on December 17, 2013 upon finding that ZTE infringed EP 119. The injunction remains in place following today’s ruling. In addition, on July 23, 2015, the German Patents Court issued a preliminary opinion regarding ZTE’s invalidity arguments with respect to EP 119, holding the preliminary view that EP 119 is valid.
Today’s decision in the Netherlands will be suspended pending Vringo’s appeal.
About Vringo, Inc.
Vringo, Inc. is engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices. Vringo's intellectual property portfolio consists of over 600 patents and patent applications covering telecom infrastructure, internet search, ad-insertion, mobile and wire-free charging technologies. Vringo’s subsidiary fliCharge is dedicated to the licensing and commercialization of wire-free charging technologies. Vringo’s subsidiary Group Mobile is dedicated to the marketing and sale of rugged computing devices. For more information, visit: www.vringo.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release includes forward-looking statements, which may be identified by words such as "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "should," "seeks," "future," "continue," or the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained herein. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to: our inability to license and monetize our patents, including the outcome of the litigation against ZTE and other companies; our inability to recognize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition of IDG, which may be affected by, among other things, competition, our ability to secure advantageous licensing and sales agreements, market acceptance of IDG’s technology, potential technology obsolescence, protection of intellectual property rights and potential liability risks that are inherent in the marketing and sale of products used by consumers; our inability to monetize and recoup our investment with respect to patent assets that we acquire; our inability to develop and introduce new products and/or develop new intellectual property; our inability to protect our intellectual property rights; new legislation, regulations or court rulings related to enforcing patents, that could harm our business and operating results; unexpected trends in the mobile phone and telecom infrastructure industries; our inability to raise additional capital to fund our combined operations and business plan; our inability to maintain the listing of our securities on a major securities exchange; the potential lack of market acceptance of our products; potential competition from other providers and products; our inability to retain key members of our management team; the future success of Infomedia and our ability to receive value from its stock; our ability to continue as a going concern; our liquidity and other risks and uncertainties and other factors discussed from time to time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), including our annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 16, 2015. Vringo expressly disclaims any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
Contacts:
Investors and Media:
Cliff Weinstein
Executive Vice President
Vringo, Inc.
646-532-6777
cweinstein@vringoinc.com
I'd say VRNG24 the most knowledgeable I would look to in following a date on the Supremes in this forum. He nailed the VRNG v Google one.
JJ
VRNG24 Monday, 10/26/15 08:40:21 PM
Re: Paullee post# 61723
Post # of 61726
That case has not been "Distributed for Conference" yet. Once it has been scheduled, the date will show up on the docket. I do not see it being "Distributed for Conference" until either 6 or 13Nov with an "order list" date of the 9th or the 16th. These are simply guesses on my part, but the dates I have provided you with are the earliest ones that are possible. I will be more than happy to track the case for you and let you know when something more concrete shows up.
Best of luck to you.
R/
V24
VRINGO SUBSIDIARY FLICHARGE AND LEADING SMART FURNITURE MANUFACTURER BRETFORD EXTEND AND EXPAND LICENSING RELATIONSHIP
Vringo, Inc.
3 minutes ago
GlobeNewswire
????
Bretford to Incorporate Technology for Education, Healthcare, Office and Retail Markets
NEW YORK - October 26, 2015 - Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices, today announced that its subsidiary, fliCharge, is extending and expanding its license agreement with Bretford Manufacturing.
In March 2014, Bretford entered into a license agreement to fliCharge`s wire-free technology solutions. The terms of the agreement have been altered such that Bretford will have an exclusive license to embed fliCharge`s wire-free charging solutions into furniture in markets including healthcare, commercial office, retail and educational facilities as well as contract furniture manufacturing. fliCharge intends to facilitate the launch by providing charging cases for phones and tablets to Bretford and its customers.
Bretford will be presenting the first commercially available implementation of this technology at NeoCon, North America`s largest design exposition and conference focused on commercial interiors, in June of 2016.
"fliCharge`s conductive wire-free technology addresses a major need of our education, healthcare, office and retail facilities customers - the need to easily and safely charge many devices without the clutter of cables and the difficulty of charging docks or stations. We intend to integrate this unique technology into our smart furniture and look forward to building upon our relationship with fliCharge and Vringo," said Chris Petrick, President and CEO of Bretford.
"We are delighted to have a partner like Bretford who is a leader in smart furniture," said Andrew Perlman, CEO of Vringo. "We look forward to commercial launches of our technology through this unique partnership in 2016," Mr. Perlman concluded.
Related Quotes
VRNG0.3378-1.66%
Vringo, Inc.
Watchlist
0.3378-0.0057(1.66%)
NASDAQ10:19 AM EDT
VRINGO INC Files SEC form 8-K, Regulation FD Disclosure, Financial Statements and Exhibits EDGAR Online 10 days ago
Vringo, Inc. Earnings Q2, 2015 Capital Cube q 1 mth 2 days ago
More
About Vringo, Inc.
Vringo, Inc. is engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices. Vringo`s intellectual property portfolio consists of over 600 patents and patent applications covering telecom infrastructure, internet search, ad-insertion, mobile and wire-free charging technologies. Vringo`s subsidiary fliCharge is dedicated to the licensing and commercialization of wire-free charging technologies. Vringo`s subsidiary Group Mobile is dedicated to the marketing and sale of rugged computing devices. For more information, visit: www.vringo.com.
About Bretford Manufacturing, Inc.
Bretford is a manufacturer of furniture for both learning and work environments. Founded in 1948 and headquartered in Franklin Park, IL, Bretford holds close to seven decades of expertise dedicated to the design and manufacture of sustainable furniture solutions that are made in the U.S.A. Each furniture design is built for quality and mobility so rooms, people and information can move and still stay connected.
With nearly 350 employees and 450,000 square feet of production space, the company offers smart furniture designs that support evolving technology, enabling institutions, organizations and corporations to increase productivity and efficiency. Superior workmanship and environmentally-compliant manufacturing and operation practices ensure dependable Bretford products, many of which are GREENGUARD Indoor Air Quality Certified®. The company is committed to using less energy, creating less waste and reducing its carbon footprint. Bretford is a CarbonNeutral®certified company and its EDU 2.0 line is among the first in the contract furniture industry to achieve CarbonNeutral product certification. All Bretford products are backed by a 12-year standard warranty.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release includes forward-looking statements, which may be identified by words such as "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "should," "seeks," "future," "continue," or the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained herein. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to: our inability to license and monetize our patents, including the outcome of the litigation against ZTE and other companies; our inability to recognize the anticipated benefits of the acquisition of IDG, which may be affected by, among other things, competition, our ability to secure advantageous licensing and sales agreements, market acceptance of IDG`s technology, potential technology obsolescence, protection of intellectual property rights and potential liability risks that are inherent in the marketing and sale of products used by consumers; our inability to monetize and recoup our investment with respect to patent assets that we acquire; our inability to develop and introduce new products and/or develop new intellectual property; our inability to protect our intellectual property rights; new legislation, regulations or court rulings related to enforcing patents, that could harm our business and operating results; unexpected trends in the mobile phone and telecom infrastructure industries; our inability to raise additional capital to fund our combined operations and business plan; our inability to maintain the listing of our securities on a major securities exchange; the potential lack of market acceptance of our products; potential competition from other providers and products; our inability to retain key members of our management team; the future success of Infomedia and our ability to receive value from its stock; our ability to continue as a going concern; our liquidity and other risks and uncertainties and other factors discussed from time to time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), including our annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 16, 2015. Vringo expressly disclaims any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
Contacts:
Investors and Media:
Cliff Weinstein
Executive Vice President
Vringo, Inc.
646-532-6777
cweinstein@vringoinc.com
As we all know the Court has combined the ZTE FRAND case with V's NDA case for the purposes of combining discovery. The cases themselves are NOT combined, but only combined so that any discovery obtained by either party can be used in both cases, as applicable.
Further, we all know that V has filed its Motion for Sanctions, and as relief they have requested case dispositive sanctions in BOTH the FRAND case as well as the NDA case, which would leave nothing but damages left to be decided in EACH case IF all the relief they have requested is granted as sanctions against ZTE.
Just a little food for thought on a possibility of what "MIGHT" happen, and I'm not saying it will, but I'm just laying it out there as a "POSSIBILITY."
The egregious acts ZTE has committed in their discovery abuse for which they are now up for sanctions on relate MOSTLY, if not almost entirely, to the NDA case. I have opined that Judge Kaplan may very well write two (2) separate Orders related to V's sanctions motion. The reason I have opined that is because they still remain two (2) separate cases OTHER than for the combined discovery. Provided the abuses they have done relate solely to, and certainly I believe they surely relate MOSTLY to, the NDA case, why should Z be punished in the FRAND action as that still remains a totally separate cause of action? I can certainly see Kaplan throwing the book at them in the NDA case and granting the requested relief so I acknowledge 100% that this is a possibility, if not a probability in my mind. However, I am not so certain that he will throw the book at them on the FRAND case if most of their bad acts relate to the NDA case, but he must also justify why he should grant dispositive sanctions against them in the totally, separate, FRAND case. I think Judge Kaplan will have to address that, and I think he likely will need to address that by issuing orders in each of the pending cases before him. IF he also throws the book at ZTE in the FRAND case, I think that will take more explaining to do than it will to throw the book at them in the NDA case, for which there are MANY reasons for him to so order. I'm just not so sure he can keep both of these cases lumped together when issuing a sanctions order. If so, I think he has to go beyond the extra mile to grant ALL the relief requested in both cases paying particular attention to sanctions he levies in the FRAND case.
I'm NOT saying that he CAN'T grant all the relief requested in BOTH cases, but I think we all need to appreciate that the Order(s) for Sanctions that he drafts are complicated by the combining of these two separate cases making more difficult to address than were it just a single case. I think it quite possible this may be what is slowing down the wheels of justice on the sanctions motion. I don't think he's waiting for a thing to rule as it was ripe upon ZTE filing their response. I expect that however he is going to rule that he will already have his Order(s) final and ready for entry upon conclusion of the hearing he indicated he would allow.
Just another GUESS as to what the potential hold up may be in Kaplan moving forward on the Sanctions Order. May be right, may be partially right, and may be totally WRONG. LOL Just food for thought.
I agree, Rain. Everyone also needs to keep in mind that it is "POSSIBLE" that he may be authoring TWO (2) separate orders. One for the FRAND case and one for the NDA case. Don't know that he'll do that, but they are still two separate cases other than the combined discovery. The requested sanctions affect BOTH of the cases so it creates the potential of TWO separate Orders for sanctions.
Rainmaker80 Friday, 10/23/15 01:44:06 PM
Re: Daniel boon post# 61676
Post # of 61682
Boon, Kaplan is not 'sitting on his hands'
I take it from your comment you don't quite understand the amount of effort, research, time it takes for a judge to make a proper ruling.
While I understand your impatience, realize this, a judge even in a case that to us and likely him is very cut and dry in terms of the outcome, still needs to thoroughly research and back up his ruling with precedents. This includes ensuring there are no 'back door' loopholes in his ruling he leaves open for appeals etc.
Essentially, he needs to do his homework to make an iron clad ruling. The reality is - THIS TAKES TIME.
Many here ( and perhaps you were not in the stock at the time ) fretted over Judge Jackson taking a great deal of time to rule in the google case (months in fact), and in the end his ruling on the royalty rate was larger than all expected. Now what happened post that is not related but you get the point.
Many here look at the stock price second by second and complain/worry etc like these boards are some sort of therapy for the neurotic.
I would suggest you simply walk away from watching this daily and when the ruling comes, which it will be in our favor, great. The bigger ruling won't be until 2016 anyways, when the damages trial occurs. This ruling while it should help provide a small lift to the stock won't do anything overly significant IMHO.
The market knows its coming and there will be no damages attached yet other than minor (court costs etc).
Thanks! Sounds good! You have a good weekend too!
Interview with the President and CEO: Soligenix, Inc. (OTCBB:SNGX)
Schaber, Christopher J.
Christopher J. Schaber, Ph.D., is President and Chief Executive Officer of Soligenix, Inc. He has over 25 years of experience in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. Dr. Schaber has been President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of Soligenix (OTCBB:SNGX) since August 2006. He was appointed Chairman of the board on October 8, 2009. He also serves on the board of directors of the Biotechnology Council of New Jersey — BioNJ — since January 2009 and the Alliance for Biosecurity since October 2014, and has been a member of the corporate councils of both the National Organization for Rare Diseases — NORD — and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation — ASBMT — since October 2009 and July 2009, respectively. Prior to joining Soligenix, Dr. Schaber served from 1998 to 2006 as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Discovery Laboratories, Inc., where he was responsible for overall pipeline development and key areas of commercial operations, including regulatory affairs, quality control and assurance, manufacturing and distribution, preclinical and clinical research, and medical affairs, as well as coordination of commercial launch preparation activities. From 1996 to 1998, Dr. Schaber was a Co-Founder of Acute Therapeutics, Inc., and served as its Vice President of Regulatory Compliance and Drug Development. From 1994 to 1996, Dr. Schaber was employed by Ohmeda PPD, Inc., as Worldwide Director of Regulatory Affairs and Operations. From 1989 to 1994, Dr. Schaber held a variety of regulatory, development and operations positions with The Liposome Company, Inc., and Elkins-Sinn Inc., a division of Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories. Dr. Schaber received his B.A. degree from Western Maryland College, his M.S. degree in pharmaceutics from Temple University School of Pharmacy and his Ph.D. degree in pharmaceutical sciences from the Union Graduate School. Profile
TWST: Can you describe your company and its purpose?
Dr. Schaber: Our company’s tagline concisely describes its purpose, and that is: rising to the challenges of rare disease
Join for free to read a longer excerpt or purchase this article
Already a member? Login here
https://www.twst.com/interview/interview-with-the-president-and-ceo-soligenix-inc-otcbbsngx
I didn't join to read this. Just making folks aware that it's out there.
JJ
LT, there is no request in the lawsuit against DTV for FRAND rates. They're seeking damages under 35 USC §284, which also makes available Treble damages:
35 U.S. Code § 284 - Damages
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
prev | next
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154 (d).
The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.
VRNG is sueing DTV for TREBLE damages. They are seeking damages under 35 USC §384.
35 U.S. Code § 284 - Damages
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154 (d).
The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.
2000 quantumStream Brochure link quantumstream.biz/
Download .pdf file
Unfortunately, when writ of cert is denied they don't explain why it is denied. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Supremes have approved of the holding, but rather that they have just decided not to address it.
I was surprised it didn't get GVR'd myself, but such is life.
cgraut Monday, 10/19/15 05:46:58 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61521
Post # of 61535
It's the reasoning I don't follow. I understand vrng lost. I thought Jackson did a good job and it surprised me that this wasn't thrown back to the lower court. Is goog that powerful ? I know the answer "yes" imo
Gotcha! Gracias!
Ghors Member Level Monday, 10/19/15 05:11:41 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61513
Post # of 61533
JJ: Ijust posted that granting of the Writ on willful damages because at some point it may become relevant to a Vringo, if we ever win a case. Willfulness and injunctive relief are very real issues right now for all small inventors. Ghors
cgaut, the Supremes refused to grant certiorari, as they do on thousands of cases. V lost, case closed. That pretty much sums it up.
cgraut Monday, 10/19/15 01:44:11 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61513
Post # of 61520
JJ. I just don't understand the Supreme Court ruling. What am I missing ?
The Google case wasn't reversed due to Willful Patent Infringement but rather Obviousness. Apples and oranges I'm afraid.
Ghors Member Level Monday, 10/19/15 11:02:18 AM
Re: None
Post # of 61512
BREAKING: High Court To Review Standard For Willful Patent Infringement
Share us on:
By Ryan Davis
Law360, New York (October 19, 2015, 10:19 AM ET) -- The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday to review the Federal Circuit's standard for proving willful infringement in patent cases, taking up two cases in which patent owners argue that the standard is overly rigid and makes it too difficult to recover enhanced damages.
The high court agreed to hear appeals by Halo Electronics Inc. and Stryker Corp. in separate cases, both of which said that the Federal Circuit's test for proving willfulness is similar to a standard the appeals court once used for deciding whether a party is entitled to attorneys' fees in patent cases, which the Supreme Court threw out last year in a case known as Octane Fitness.
If VRNG cannot prove irreparable harm, they will not get the injunction in the final judgment. Doc 283 is working on irreparable harm. Regardless of the NDA providing for an injunction it doesn't matter in federal court without a showing of irreparable harm. This is CRITICAL in shutting ZTE down to collect the judgment when the NDA case is all said and done. A finding of irreparable harm is NOT included as something they sought in their motion for sanctions as a sanction. Maybe they thought they wouldn't get it. Clearly they are trying to prove it, as they should. Get'em VRNG!
YES INDEED!!
greenaccountingbeen Friday, 10/16/15 06:32:25 PM
Re: None
Post # of 61434
Wow. Stronger case for potential ongoing "irreparable harm": https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sdny-doc-283-16oct2015.pdf
I'd say we can safely guess how "approximately 11.4%" of the shareholder vote will go on the proposals at the annual meeting.
Dear Vringo Stockholder,
Vringo, Inc. is filing this Proxy Statement Supplement (the “Supplement”) in connection with the annual meeting of stockholders to be held on November 16, 2015 (the “Annual Meeting”). This Supplement, which should be read together with the Proxy Statement dated as of September 25, 2015 (the “Proxy Statement”), is being filed to provide supplemental disclosures related to Proposal 2, which is a proposal to approve an amendment to our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to effect a reverse stock split of our issued and outstanding shares common stock, at a ratio within the range of one-for-two to one-for-ten, such ratio to be determined by our Board of Directors, and Proposal No. 4, which is a proposal to approve an amendment to our amended and restated certificate of incorporation to increase the number of our authorized shares of common stock by 100,000,000, from 150,000,000 to 250,000,000 shares.
As previously disclosed in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2015 (the “Current Report”), on October 15, 2015, we entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with, and completed the acquisition of, International Development Group Limited, a Maryland corporation (“IDG”), each of the holders of the capital stock of IDG (the “Sellers”) and the Sellers’ representative. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, we acquired 100% of the capital stock of IDG, including two of IDG’s subsidiaries, fliChage International Ltd., in which IDG owns 70% of the capital stock and controls the operations, and the wholly-owned Group Mobile International Ltd.
In consideration for the acquisition, we issued an aggregate of 1,609,167 shares of our newly designated Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series B Preferred Stock”), par value $0.01 per share, of which 1,604,167 shares were issued to the Sellers and 5,000 shares were issued to IDG’s legal counsel as compensation. In addition, 240,625 shares of Series B Preferred Stock will be held in escrow to secure certain of the Sellers’ indemnity obligations under the Purchase Agreement for a period of up to 12 months. The 1,609,167 shares of Series B Preferred Stock are convertible into an aggregate of 16,091,670 shares of our common stock, par value $0.01 per share. In addition, we have issued to one of the Sellers 575,000 shares of our unregistered common stock in consideration of his forgiveness of debt. The shares of Series B Preferred Stock were issued pursuant to the terms of the Certificate of Designations of Preferences, Rights and Limitations of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Certificate of Designations”), filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware at closing and as Exhibit 3.1 to our Current Report.
A summary of the material terms of the Series B Preferred Stock is set forth below.
Designation. We have designated 1,609,167 shares of Series B Preferred Stock.
Dividends. The holders of the Series B Preferred Stock shall be entitled to receive dividends and distributions made to the holders of our common stock, pro rata to the holders of common stock on an as-converted basis.
Liquidation Preference. Upon liquidation event (as defined in the Certificate of Designations), any of our remaining assets shall be distributed pro rata to the holders of common stock and the holders of Series B Preferred Stock on an as-converted basis.
Voting. The Series B Preferred Stock has voting rights pursuant to which each issued and outstanding share of share of Series B Preferred Stock shall be entitled to the number of votes equal to the number of shares of common stock into which each such share of Series B Preferred Stock is convertible.
Conversion. The Series B Preferred Stock will automatically be converted into our shares of common stock immediately upon (i) our authorized shares of common stock being increased to an amount sufficient to allow us to convert all shares of Series B Preferred Stock then outstanding into shares of common stock or (ii) the number of issued and outstanding shares of common stock and shares reserved for issuance being reduced to an amount sufficient to allow us to convert all shares of Series B Preferred Stock then outstanding into shares of common stock. If the automatic conversion does not occur at the Annual Meeting, then each share of Series B Preferred Stock shall automatically be converted into shares of common stock, up to and to the extent that we have authorized shares that are not reserved for other issuances. Each share of Series B Preferred Stock will be convertible into a fixed conversion rate of 10 shares of common stock per one share of Series B Preferred Stock, subject to certain adjustments.
We provide you with this Supplement to specifically disclose that under the terms of the Certificate of Designations, upon the approval of either Proposal No. 2 or Proposal No 4. by our stockholders at the Annual Meeting, the Series B Preferred Stock will automatically be converted into 16,091,670 of our shares of common stock.
If you have already voted your shares with respect to the Annual Meeting, you do not need to resubmit your vote or to complete a new proxy card. You should continue to use the proxy card previously sent to you with the Proxy Statement. Any stockholder who desires to revoke or change a previously executed proxy, based on the information set forth in this Supplement or otherwise, may do so in the manner described in the Proxy Statement.
With regard to Proposals 2 and 4, to the extent that the information in this Supplement differs from, updates or conflicts with the information contained in the Proxy Statement, the information in this Supplement shall amend and supersede the information in the Proxy Statement. Except as so amended or superseded, all information set forth in the Proxy Statement, including with respect to Proposals 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, remains unchanged. We urge you to read this Supplement carefully and in its entirety together with the Proxy Statement.
A copy of this Supplement is also available on our website at www.vringoip.com. We thank you for your continued interest in and support for Vringo, Inc.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC MISSING]
Andrew D. Perlman
Chief Executive Officer
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=10958304
DEF 14-A
One thing to keep in mind on the pending Motion for Sanctions ruling is that we still have two (2) separate causes of action in which V is seeking dispositive sanctions for each, other than damages. IF Kaplan grants all the relief requested he will have wiped out potentially a month of trial in his court, provided each trial on the merits would run approximately 2 weeks long. It's worth it to him, and he can do it at his leisure, to spend the time he needs in issuing his sanctions order. IF he gives V all they ask for he's just left with what I believe will remain to be two (2) separate damages trials, which will be relatively short in comparison to full trials on the merits.
I'm not certain if we will see two separate orders for sanctions, one for each cause of action, or just a single order incorporating his ruling for both causes of action since they are combined for discovery. Doesn't really matter in the end. I was just thinking about how he will handle it.
Vringo is still an NPE as to the patents it is asserting against ZTE. They won't be an NPE for any patents they just acquired in this acquisition should they seek to enforce those particular patents, but that doesn't change their status in monetizing the Nokia patents.
Danburydude Friday, 10/16/15 03:59:19 PM
Re: None
Post # of 61425
At least we now know why VRNG wasn't in a hurry with Kaplan . VRNG knew this acquisition was coming. This acquisition means VRNG will no longer be an NPE . The acquisition will provide much needed income while VRNG sorts through all the material recently supplied by ZTE . Those materials my just provide keys to a bigger pay out on down the road.
In addition, when VRNG finally does ask for financial damages, they will be pleading as an ongoing business, not an NPE . Big difference in the eyes of the law . ZTE , by stalling , may have hurt themselves again .
I applaud this move by VRNG . Solid financially , and buys them time to put the final nails in ZTE's coffin . ZTE has to be using some Chinese swear words right about now. They have acknowledged that they owe. They have been found to have violated an NDA . And now they can't bleed VRNG to death . Great entry point at this time . I doubled my position today . I definitely won't mind holding awhile, even through short term dips. The long term looks very rosy indeed .
Actually gets us to a better spot as Kaplan likely wouldn't grant the relief they are requesting in a summary judgment motion, but as a sanction he may very give it to them as a punishment to ZTE...all of it! Going into trial(s) it would truly be an awesome position to be in. I hope he grants it all!
Rainmaker80 Thursday, 10/15/15 01:34:04 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61381
Post # of 61383
Thank you, so in the end it gets us to the same spot (potentially).
The sanctions VRNG has requested are dispositive as to both of the cases. Instead of requesting a summary judgment on these issues, which they likely would have gotten if not for Z's behavior, they are seeking them through sanctions which, effectively, will work just like a summary judgment, except for damages of course. IF all of V's relief requested in the Motion for Sanctions is granted, there will be no need for them to file for a summary judgment in the future for any reason I can think of.
V had a partial judgment on the pleadings in April when Kaplan ruled the Z had violated the NDA.
Rainmaker80 Thursday, 10/15/15 01:26:26 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 61378
Post # of 61380
Thanks for the clarification - a few questions.
1. Can Kaplan not provide a summary ruling on the sanction issue? And are you aware if VRNG asked for this? I haven't gone through all the court documents that VRNG24 has posted.
2. I assume that is what all are expecting giving no one seems to be talking of a ruling/trial date for summary ruling?
thanks in advance
My guess is the earliest the damages trial could be is in May. They don't submit a join pretrial order until April, if VRNG's extension is granted.
Also, these are still two separate cases, other than being combined for discovery. I'm guessing they will have two separate trials with the NDA case getting tried first since it was the first filed case. Just my guess. Not saying they can't be consolidated for trial, but they haven't been yet. I kinda think he'll try them separate.
Rainmaker80 Thursday, 10/15/15 01:07:26 PM
Re: ipnoob post# 61375
Post # of 61377
I agree with that Noob but a couple of points.
1. We don't know when Kaplan will rule on his motion for sanction. That will provide support for the pps. Will it be prior to a R/S or after? None of us know.
2. Damages case is in April so the stock will start trending up likely Feb/March.
3. Point being, any attack (which I will agree will come but severity will be impacted by number 1 above), will be short lived.
I wish, in VRNG's Motion for Sanctions that they would have requested as a sanction, among the other requests, that the Court find that Vringo has suffered irreparable harm as a result of the breach of the NDA. They get the judged nodding on the other requests he might have granted that one too. Water under the bridge now, but would have been nice to see it in there.
LT, I don't know. You might read this article for some enlightenment: http://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/when-youre-not-in-kansas-anymore-untangling-the-conundrum-of-enforcing-united-states-money-judgments-in-foreign-countries
Long term Wednesday, 10/14/15 12:14:35 PM
Re: None
Post # of 61354
JJ to an unclear international legal point
As I understand it there's zte China (main HQ), then there's zte US,zte Aust,zte gr. ect ....does "V"action in SDNY apply to zte (HQ) thus world wide ( application of damages and source of funds for damages ect).....
OR, just apply to where "V" has taken action ie. zte US SDNY......
As I understand it there's zte China (main HQ).
Then there's zte US,zte Aust,zte gr. ect ....
Does "V"action in SDNY apply to zte (HQ) thus world wide.....
OR, just apply to where "V" has taken action ie. zte US SDNY......
As action was taken by zte in Chinese courts (NDRC) and "V" representatives were required to testify it would imply zte (HQ) and ALL affiliates are covered by "Vs" SDNY action and results,
Thus,..... not just in countries "V" has taken action.
Not clear on treaties & effect of same
Not clear on treaties and effect of same
1.what countries do we have treaties with and to what extent if any, that speak to our situation.
2.do the treaties proving the courts to take into account the results of the decision of the SDNY
Not clear on comity laws ( noore if I'm stating it correctly.)
1. applicable here?
2.how they work?
3. do they allow courts to follow SDNY?
That's a bunch.... and it's internatioal law...perhaps if not you but in your legal network here will be some expertise.
Most important part of that article:
"According to this law firm article, the approach of Delaware state law differs from that of US federal law on this point. The authors discuss the federal case of Riverside Publishing Co. v. Mercer Publishing LLC, No. 11-1249 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 4, 2011):
Riverside pointed to the settlement agreement’s irreparable harm clause to argue that, absent injunctive relief, Mercer’s purported breach would cause irreparable harm. The court disagreed. It first recognized that circuit and district courts have declined to presume irreparable harm based on a contract clause. Pointing to the Supreme Court’s emphasis in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council that movants demonstrate actual harm, the court “querie[d] whether it can give any weight to such a clause.”?“At best,” the court concluded, “the clause is evidence that at the time of the Settlement Agreement, the parties predicted that breaches of [certain terms of the Agreement] would be the sort that would cause irreparable harm.”Although “[t]hat prediction is perhaps entitled to some weight,” the court held that the clause did “not relieve Riverside of its obligation to demonstrate irreparable harm.”"
At trial Vringo will still have to show "irreparable harm" to get an injunction it appears. Likely another reason they didn't seek injunction in the Motion for Sanctions as it's not yet time to prove "irreparable harm" as that would be an issue to be proven at the damages trial.
Good find Giovinco!
Don't see any filings or PR to warrant the sudden drop. I thought maybe they announced a big private placement but I see nada!
WOW! Just dropped to $1.33.
Gap got filled. Maybe she'll have a good afternoon.
AXN Announces Fiscal 2015 Net Income of $5.8 Million vs. $8.6 Million Net Loss in Fiscal 2014
Company Doubles Revenue and Achieves First Profitable Year Since Inception in 2002; Live Conference Call at 8:30 AM Today; Access Instructions Below
Marketwired Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.
4 hours ago
????
JERSEY CITY, NJ--(Marketwired - Oct 13, 2015) - Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. (NYSE MKT: AXN) today announced that, for the year ended June 30, 2015, the company doubled revenue to $25,481,199, compared to $12,739,371 in revenue for fiscal 2014.
The company recorded net income from operations in fiscal 2015 of $8,695,657 versus a loss of $3,334,879 in the prior year. After accounting for interest expense of $5,768,094 and a tax benefit of $2,704,369, Aoxing had net income in fiscal 2015 of $5,818,473, or $.09 per share. This compares to a net loss of $8,634,380, or $(.16) per share, in fiscal 2014.
Weighted average number of shares outstanding at June 30, 2015 was 63,107,104 compared to 49,856,247 at June 30, 2014.
The doubling of revenue over the prior fiscal year was primarily the result of Aoxing eliminating most third-party distributors during fiscal 2015, enabling the company to expand its sales team and sell its products directly to the end customer -- including large chain drug stores -- at higher prices.
Aoxing's fiscal 2015 performance was also boosted by a sharp decrease in the market prices of raw materials, which resulted in a lower year-over-year aggregate on cost of goods sold. As a result of this decrease, Aoxing's gross margin in fiscal 2015 increased to 77.7% from 45.6% in fiscal 2014, resulting in a gross profit of $19,792,236, a 240% increase from $5,813,674 in the prior year.
The company's profitability in fiscal 2015 was further enhanced by a 23.8% decrease in general and administrative expenses and a 40.8% decrease in research and development expenses when compared to fiscal 2014.
Aoxing's cash balance as of June 30, 2015 was $5,371,545, compared to $2,329,660 as of June 30, 2014. This increase was the result of cash flow generated by the company's operating profit and sale of common stock, partially offset by repayment of loans and capital expenditures during the year.
Mr. Zhenjiang Yue, Chairman and CEO of Aoxing Pharma, said, "We are proud to have achieved strong results in fiscal 2015 -- our first profitable year -- and believe fiscal 2016 will also be a very strong year.
"As reported in September 2015, the company's lead product, Zhongtongan, was included in the government essential drug procurement lists for Hebei, Jiangsu, Shanxi, and Hubei Provinces. This event," said Mr. Yue, "along with Aoxing's plans to obtain additional provincial essential drug procurement listings for the product and to collaborate with new distribution companies for Zhongtongan, should result in substantial increases in sales of the product in fiscal 2016.
"Also in September, Aoxing entered into an agreement with Shijiazhuang Zhongtian Medical Company, a pharmaceutical products distributor in China, that will enable our Hebei Aoxing subsidiary to initiate production of 84 over-the-counter pill medicines it acquired in 2008. This agreement is expected to yield about $5 million in revenue in fiscal 2016.
"Third," noted Mr. Yue, "the company's Tilidine HCL pain fighting tablets, approved for sale in June 2015 by the China FDA (CFDA) and scheduled for market introduction in the fourth calendar quarter of 2015, should realize substantial market growth by end of June 2016, and be granted a minimum of eight-year market exclusivity protection within China."
The CEO added that Aoxing has submitted an NDA to the CFDA for final production clearance of the company's Oxycodone/Acetaminophen Tablets and Capsules used to treat acute and chronic pain, and expects such clearance will be received in fiscal 2016. When received, Aoxing would become the first Chinese company to produce this generic product.
Also, in July of 2015 AXN announced positive results of clinical trials for its Buprenorphine/Naloxone sublingual tablets as a treatment for opioid dependence. The company is currently working on submitting this clinical data to the CFDA, and expects to receive indications on this approval in the near future.
"With this diversification of our product line, as well as our entry in the narcotic product sector -- a sector as yet underdeveloped in China -- we are expecting fiscal 2016 revenue to increase substantially, to about $45 million," said Mr. Yue.
He added that he expected the company's clinical trial expenses in fiscal 2016 to be "minimal," thus helping Aoxing to maintain a strong bottom line for the year.
The company invites all interested parties to join its live Fiscal 2015 Earnings Conference Call at 8:30 am EDT this morning. Participants may dial 877-407-0778 in the U.S. or 201-689-8565 internationally, five to ten minutes before the beginning of the call. The call will also be webcast at http://www.investorcalendar.com/IC/CEPage.asp?ID=172955 and on the Aoxing website (http://www.aoxingpharma.com).
About the Company
Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. is a US incorporated specialty pharmaceutical company with its operations in China, specializing in research, development, manufacturing and distribution of a variety of narcotics and pain-management products. Headquartered in Shijiazhuang City, outside Beijing, Aoxing Pharma has the largest and most advanced manufacturing facility in China for highly regulated narcotic medicines. Its facility is one of the few GMP facilities licensed for the manufacture of narcotic medicines by the China Food and Drug Administration ("CFDA"). For more information, please visit: www.aoxingpharma.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains certain statements that may include "forward-looking statements." All statements other than statements of historical fact included herein are "forward-looking statements." These forward-looking statements are often identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "believes," "expects" or similar expressions, involving known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, they do involve assumptions, risks and uncertainties, and these expectations may prove to be incorrect. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release. The Company's actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of a variety of factors, including the risk factors discussed in the Company's periodic reports that are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available on the SEC's website (http://www.sec.gov). All forward-looking statements attributable to the Company or persons acting on its behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by these risk factors. Other than as required under the securities laws, the Company does not assume a duty to update these forward-looking statements.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aoxing-pharma-announces-fiscal-2015-110000553.html
BTW, as I said I have been a litigation assistant for almost 40 years. MY bonuses come from the work I do on cases, the settlements I make, and how well the case is prepped when it goes to trial, and THE RESULT. VRNG management should be held to at least the standard of a mere litigation assistant. Plaintiff Attorneys in private practice make money in their pocketbooks by producing favorable results. I do NOT fault VRNG at all in their prosecution of the Google case. They took it to trial, and they won at the trial court level. That got reversed on appeal, and WoC was denied by SCOTUS, so in the end it comes down to a loss. As Plaintiffs in these litigations, you make no money if unsuccessful. I am NOT in favor of any increase in salaries for V management. Again, I think they tried a good case, but the net result is a loss. Chalk us one up in the win column before increasing compensation.
YW. I try to help the board on procedural issues that I can comment on. I also give my opinions sometimes on certain matters, but those are always, always, done as a layman. I do not, and never have, given legal opinions on any matter regarding this stock, nor any other. I have nearly 40 years as a litigation assistant under my belt so I just try to add what little insight I can as a layman.
When a particular rule applies to something, I post it with the link, or cite the rule. Many things can happen in a lawsuit, and sometimes I venture to guess what MAY happen. That is not a legal opinion, but just a possibility that might happen.
I can assure you that V's counsel don't always KNOW what the other side will do, although they anticipate it, so NO I don't always know what is going to come down the pike, but I try to make reasonable guesses as to what could happen procedurally. I don't say they WILL happen, but that they MAY happen.
Anyway, I believe my posting history bears out the manner in which I post since 2004 on iHub. Those that don't wish to read my posts should block me. I encourage it!
As my bio says, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. Never professed to be an attorney on ANY forum. All my posts are FWIW and IMO. Take it, or leave it!
JJ
As part of the lawsuit against Z, VRNG is requesting its legal fees and costs. Apart from that, they are also requesting their legal fees and costs solely related to bringing their Motion for Sanctions. Those attorney's fees and costs will be awarded as part of the sanctions, and would not also later be included in the overall award for attorney's fees and costs upon conclusion of the case.
kvnmcdd Monday, 10/12/15 02:27:49 PM
Re: Giovinco post# 61279
Post # of 61280
And I feel assured judge K is about to be asked soon by VRNG to pay for DNA case legal fees....everyone has to decide for themselves
LT, V is trying to run down through discovery exactly how the NDA was shared with G, et al, and what was done with the info. I would think that their primary goal is to prove their punitive damages case. The flagrant, willful, violation of the NDA is what gets them to punitive damages, and punitive damages may be the biggest award of the NDA case. Nobody will know for sure until the damages trial and Kaplan hands down his verdict.
I have no idea what the FRAND rate will be or what it's true value is. All we know on that is that the $800+M figure got disclosed to us. Whether or not that will end up being the figure I do not know.