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.
YW! Again, bear in mind that Kaplan does NOT have to grant oral argument on the Sanctions motion, although I think he will. It was actually ripe for ruling upon ZTE's response getting filed. After Maas rules on these two Kaplan could simply issue his ruling. Again, I think he'll set a hearing out of caution, but that's not an absolute. The Sanctions matter was ripe for ruling upon ZTE's filing their response.
Maas is the Magistrate Judge. He was assigned by Judge Kaplan to handle that emergency motion to compel, as well as some other prior motions. Those two filings were still unresolved and need to be taken care of before Judge Kaplan can proceed with ruling on the Motion for Sanctions. Just a little house cleaning it appears to me. Nothing to get excited about.
Looks like housekeeping ahead of the sanctions hearing, yet to be scheduled.
AXN ER was 6:07 a.m. last year. Probably premarket again this year.
AXN ER was Monday, 9/29 last year. Chances are it will be Monday, 9/28 this year.
That's also what this site shows, but guessing it's based upon the same reasoning. https://www.earningswhispers.com/stocks/axn
Aoxing Pharma Gains Inclusion of Zhongtongan in Procurement Lists of Hebei, Jiangsu, Shanxi, and Hubei Provinces
Accesswire
7 hours ago
????
JERSEY CITY, NJ / ACCESSWIRE / September 16, 2015 / Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. (NYSE MKT: AXN) ("Aoxing Pharma"), a specialty pharmaceutical company focusing on research, development, manufacturing, and distribution of narcotic, pain-management, and addiction treatment pharmaceuticals, today announced that its best-selling product, Zhongtongan (an herbal extract capsule for toothache, stomatitis, bone and joint pain treatment), has been included in the government essential drug procurement lists for Hebei, Jiangsu, Shanxi, and Hubei Provinces. Hebei Province has begun procurement of the drug, and the Company expects Jiangsu, Shanxi, and Hubei Provinces will begin procurement soon.
"We're very excited that Zhongtongan has been recognized as an essential drug in four additional provinces," said Mr. Zhenjiang Yue, Chairman and CEO of Aoxing Pharma. "This reaffirms the quality and acceptance of our products. Sales in those four provinces, which have a combined population of 220 million, already account for 30% of the Company's total sales. We expect government procurement to increase over time, which should cause Zhongtongan sales in the four provinces to increase several fold."
The inclusion of Zhongtongan in the provincial drug procurement lists is part of an overall strategy by Aoxing Pharma to take advantage of China's increasing drug reimbursement in connection with its move to universal healthcare. The Company is also working on obtaining inclusion of Zhongtongan and other products in the New Rural Cooperative Medical System, which would add the nation's rural population to the Company's market.
Meanwhile, the package design and other preparations for our newly approved product, Tilidine, have been completed. The Company expects to commence a national rollout with initial production and sales in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.
We are currently estimating the effect of the above on our revenue and profitability. The Company plans to provide financial guidance at the same time we report out fiscal 2015 results at the end of this month.
About Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.
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 from Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.
Certain statements made in this press release are forward-looking and are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in these statements. All forward-looking statements included herein are based upon information available to the Company as of the date hereof and, except as is expressly required by the federal securities laws, the Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, changed circumstances or future events or for any other reason. To the extent that any statements made here are not historical, these statements are essentially forward-looking. Undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking information. The economic, competitive, governmental, technological and other risk factors identified in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically, Item 1A, "Risk Factors," in the Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2014, may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those described in the forward looking statements in this press release. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether because of new information, future events, or otherwise.
CONTACT:
Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company:
646-367-1747
investor.relations@aoxingpharma.com
SOURCE: Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.
Well, the chances of the judge ordering a new trial when he is sitting as the finder of fact ain't real good. They'd have to move up the chain to get that done.
I find the timing of ZTE's withdrawal of their jury demand pretty interesting. Here we are right on the eve of their response to V's sanctions motion for death penalty sanctions and they withdraw the jury demand now? Why? Why not after Kaplan's ruled on the sanctions motion? Don't know of a rule mandating that they had to do it now, although there could be. Maybe Angus knows. I don't think it's set for trial til March or so, but don't recall. Don't think there would be anything in the Scheduling Order on it, but may be. IF they had to decide right now then it's not so damned interesting. LOL
Good question. Evidently ZTE feels the judge will be easier on them on damages than a jury would be. That may be true. A jury could really get inflamed and go wild on this one, IMO, but so could the judge.
He has chastised ZTE, and their counsel, numerous times in this proceeding. He also had a nice conversation with the judge up in Delaware that ZTE made look like a fool. Once he gets through figuring damages I think he'll heap some more on top just for that little stunt, although it won't be segregated in the damages award but it could certainly be mentioned. Also don't forget that sworn affidavit, which was perjurious.
IF I were ZTE, and of course I'm not, I don't know that I wouldn't have taken the damages trial to the jury. It's a gut call. Sometimes your gut is right, sometimes it isn't. Nobody will ever know 100% if they made the right call or not as we'll never know what a jury would have done. It's possible ZTE has done mock trials with people off the street acting as jurors to see what kind of damages they would award in this case. In fact, I'd say it's probable. May have scared the shit out of them and figured the judge was the lesser of the 2 evils, I don't know. Either way, Judge Kaplan will solely have them in the palm of his hands from here on out. As for V, they may simply have waived their right to a jury trial since they didn't request one so they just went a head and agreed. I'm not so sure I wouldn't have agreed to it anyway.
I suspect that when it's all said and done that BOTH sides will wonder what a jury would have decided.
It will still be a public trial. They'll just have the judge acting as the sole fact-finder instead of impaneling a jury. Hopefully he knows how to work a calculator. LMAO
I'm not so sure I would want to place my fate regarding damages to a judge that has already warned ZTE that they should remember the Penzoil vs. Texaco case. That alone would probably be enough for me to want to go to a jury instead of the the Court for a damages award, if I were ZTE.
LOL Well, I had plenty of shellfish, and all kinds of fish. Also had some good prime rib and beef tenderloin. As for booze, I sure had plenty of that too. However, it was so damned hot there that I don't know that I could have drank enough to get tooted. The sun, heat, and humidity are really draining there, and I spent very little time in the room other than to be in bed, some of that time which was spent sleeping. LOL Food was GREAT! They had 5 restaurants there but we just hit the buffet every meal. It was huge with lots of variety. It was a great trip! My cell phone and my 30 oz. Yeti tumbler are in the bottom of the Pacific, but that's a story I'll tell another day. My sister-in-law owes me big time. LOL
Red Angus Wednesday, 09/09/15 02:40:41 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 60340
Post # of 60350
JJ-When the first Europeans arrived at Kabu San Lucas it is said the natives were surviving on a subsistence diet based on hunting and the gathering of seeds, roots, shellfish, and other marine resources. I’m thinking maybe you consumed more than that?
Just returned from Cabo San Lucas. Looks like lots of reading to do to catch up. Looks like VRNG is going straight for the jugular and skipping the adverse inferences. Ought to be some good reading.
Yes, likely will. Tug on Superman's cape again. You'll get what you're gonna get. LOL
Under Judge Kaplan's Individual Rules of Practice Z would have two (2) business days to reply to VRNG's sanctions motion. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Kaplan
IF V files today, and Z must reply within 2 business days, their response would be due Tuesday, 9/1/15.
IF V files Monday, Z's response would be due 09/2/15 with no extension granted. IF no extension is granted, Monday would be the best day to file it.
However, IF the 5 working day extension is granted, and V filed their motion today, Z's response would be due on Friday, September 4th.
IF the 5 working day extension is granted, and V files their motion Monday, Z would then have until September 8th to file their response as Monday, 9/7 is Labor Day.
The day of the filing of a motion, or pleading, is not counted when calculating a response date.
This is just a for instance as we don't even know if V is ready to file their motion yet.
Soligenix Receives Additional NIAID Funding to Advance Development of OrbeShield™ in GI ARS
Awarded $2.1 million in additional funding
PR Newswire Soligenix, Inc.
2 hours ago
????
PRINCETON, N.J., Aug. 27, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Soligenix, Inc. (SNGX) (Soligenix or the Company), a late-stage biopharmaceutical company developing products that address unmet medical needs in the areas of inflammation, oncology and biodefense, announced today that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has exercised its option to advance preclinical development of OrbeShield™ (oral beclomethasone 17,21-dipropionate or oral BDP). The 12-month option provides an additional $2.1 million to Soligenix to advance OrbeShield™ as a medical countermeasure (MCM) for the treatment of gastrointestinal acute radiation syndrome (GI ARS). NIAID granted the award of up to $6.4 million over three years on September 18, 2013.
Soligenix's GI ARS program is supported by contract awards from both the Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority (BARDA) and NIAID, totaling up to approximately $32 million. In addition to developing oral BDP as a MCM, the company is also pursuing oral BDP as a treatment for GI inflammation in pediatric Crohn's disease and acute radiation enteritis.
"The execution of the second option reflects NIAID's ongoing commitment to developing MCMs for GI ARS and the compelling nature of Soligenix's OrbeShield™ product," stated Christopher J. Schaber, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer of Soligenix. "This continued funding, plus the BARDA contract awarded, has the potential to provide the necessary funding to advance the development of OrbeShield™ while building upon the scientific evidence supporting its use as a potential MCM in GI ARS. We thank NIAID for their past and present support and look forward to continuing our close collaboration as we advance this technology."
About GI ARS
ARS occurs after toxic radiation exposure and involves several organ systems, notably the bone marrow, the GI tract and later the lungs. In the event of a nuclear disaster or terrorist detonation of a nuclear bomb, people exposed to radiation levels greater than 2 Gy are at high risk of developing ARS. Exposure to high doses of radiation exceeding 10 to 12 Gy causes acute GI injury, which can result in death in 5 to 15 days. The GI tract is highly sensitive due to the requirement for incessant proliferation of crypt stem cells and production of mucosal epithelium. The extent of injury to the bone marrow and the GI tract are the principal determinants of survival after exposure to total body irradiation. Although hematopoietic ARS can be rescued by bone marrow transplantation or growth factor administration, there is no established treatment or preventive measure for the GI damage that occurs after high-dose radiation. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop specific MCMs against the lethal consequences of radiation-induced GI injury.
About OrbeShield™
OrbeShield™ is formulated for oral administration in GI ARS patients as a single product consisting of two tablets; one tablet releases BDP in the proximal portions of the GI tract and the other tablet releases BDP in the distal portions of the GI tract. BDP has been marketed in the US and worldwide since the early 1970s as the active pharmaceutical ingredient in inhalation products for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma. To date, oral BDP has been safely administered to more than 350 human subjects in multiple clinical studies. Oral BDP is also being developed for use in other GI disorders characterized by severe inflammation such as pediatric Crohn's disease and radiation enteritis.
The FDA has cleared the Investigational New Drug (IND) application for OrbeShield™ for the mitigation of morbidity and mortality associated with GI ARS. OrbeShield™ has also been granted Orphan Drug and Fast Track designations by the FDA for the prevention of death following a potentially lethal dose of total body irradiation during or after a radiation disaster. OrbeShield™ development as an MCM for GI ARS is currently being supported by BARDA and NIAID contracts valued up to $26.3 million and $6.4 million, respectively.
About Soligenix, Inc.
Soligenix is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company developing products that address unmet medical needs in the areas of inflammation, oncology and biodefense. Our BioTherapeutics business segment is developing SGX301 as a first-in-class photodynamic therapy utilizing safe visible light for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, proprietary formulations of oral beclomethasone 17,21-dipropionate (BDP) for the prevention/treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) disorders characterized by severe inflammation including pediatric Crohn's disease (SGX203) and acute radiation enteritis (SGX201), and our novel innate defense regulator technology (SGX942) for the treatment of oral mucositis.
Our Vaccines/BioDefense business segment includes active development programs for RiVax™, our ricin toxin vaccine candidate, VeloThrax™, our anthrax vaccine candidate, OrbeShield™, our GI acute radiation syndrome therapeutic candidate and SGX101 and SGX943, our melioidosis therapeutic candidates. The development of our vaccine programs incorporates the use of our proprietary heat stabilization platform technology, known as ThermoVax™. Currently, this business segment is supported with up to $57 million in government grant and contract funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Additionally, Soligenix has an exclusive worldwide collaboration with Intrexon Corporation (XON) focused on the joint development of SGX101 for the treatment for melioidosis.
For further information regarding Soligenix, Inc., please visit the Company's website at www.soligenix.com.
This press release may contain forward-looking statements that reflect Soligenix, Inc.'s current expectations about its future results, performance, prospects and opportunities, including but not limited to, potential market sizes, patient populations and clinical trial enrollment. Statements that are not historical facts, such as "anticipates," "estimates," "believes," "intends," "potential," or similar expressions, are forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results in future periods to differ materially from what is expressed in, or implied by, these statements. Soligenix cannot assure you that it will be able to successfully develop, achieve regulatory approval for or commercialize products based on its technologies, particularly in light of the significant uncertainty inherent in developing vaccines against bioterror threats conducting preclinical and clinical trials of vaccines, obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing vaccines, that product development and commercialization efforts will not be reduced or discontinued due to difficulties or delays in clinical trials or due to lack of progress or positive results from research and development efforts, that it will be able to successfully obtain any further funding to support product development and commercialization efforts, including grants and awards, maintain its existing grants which are subject to performance requirements, enter into any biodefense procurement contracts with the US Government or other countries, that it will be able to compete with larger and better financed competitors in the biotechnology industry, that changes in health care practice, third party reimbursement limitations and Federal and/or state health care reform initiatives will not negatively affect its business, or that the US Congress may not pass any legislation that would provide additional funding for the Project BioShield program. These and other risk factors are described from time to time in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, but not limited to, Soligenix's reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K. Unless required by law, Soligenix assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements as a result of new information or future events.
To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/soligenix-receives-additional-niaid-funding-to-advance-development-of-orbeshield-in-gi-ars-300133636.html
Soligenix Receives Additional NIAID Funding to Advance Development of OrbeShield™ in GI ARS
Awarded $2.1 million in additional funding
PR Newswire Soligenix, Inc.
2 hours ago
????
PRINCETON, N.J., Aug. 27, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Soligenix, Inc. (SNGX) (Soligenix or the Company), a late-stage biopharmaceutical company developing products that address unmet medical needs in the areas of inflammation, oncology and biodefense, announced today that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has exercised its option to advance preclinical development of OrbeShield™ (oral beclomethasone 17,21-dipropionate or oral BDP). The 12-month option provides an additional $2.1 million to Soligenix to advance OrbeShield™ as a medical countermeasure (MCM) for the treatment of gastrointestinal acute radiation syndrome (GI ARS). NIAID granted the award of up to $6.4 million over three years on September 18, 2013.
Soligenix's GI ARS program is supported by contract awards from both the Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority (BARDA) and NIAID, totaling up to approximately $32 million. In addition to developing oral BDP as a MCM, the company is also pursuing oral BDP as a treatment for GI inflammation in pediatric Crohn's disease and acute radiation enteritis.
"The execution of the second option reflects NIAID's ongoing commitment to developing MCMs for GI ARS and the compelling nature of Soligenix's OrbeShield™ product," stated Christopher J. Schaber, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer of Soligenix. "This continued funding, plus the BARDA contract awarded, has the potential to provide the necessary funding to advance the development of OrbeShield™ while building upon the scientific evidence supporting its use as a potential MCM in GI ARS. We thank NIAID for their past and present support and look forward to continuing our close collaboration as we advance this technology."
About GI ARS
ARS occurs after toxic radiation exposure and involves several organ systems, notably the bone marrow, the GI tract and later the lungs. In the event of a nuclear disaster or terrorist detonation of a nuclear bomb, people exposed to radiation levels greater than 2 Gy are at high risk of developing ARS. Exposure to high doses of radiation exceeding 10 to 12 Gy causes acute GI injury, which can result in death in 5 to 15 days. The GI tract is highly sensitive due to the requirement for incessant proliferation of crypt stem cells and production of mucosal epithelium. The extent of injury to the bone marrow and the GI tract are the principal determinants of survival after exposure to total body irradiation. Although hematopoietic ARS can be rescued by bone marrow transplantation or growth factor administration, there is no established treatment or preventive measure for the GI damage that occurs after high-dose radiation. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop specific MCMs against the lethal consequences of radiation-induced GI injury.
About OrbeShield™
OrbeShield™ is formulated for oral administration in GI ARS patients as a single product consisting of two tablets; one tablet releases BDP in the proximal portions of the GI tract and the other tablet releases BDP in the distal portions of the GI tract. BDP has been marketed in the US and worldwide since the early 1970s as the active pharmaceutical ingredient in inhalation products for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma. To date, oral BDP has been safely administered to more than 350 human subjects in multiple clinical studies. Oral BDP is also being developed for use in other GI disorders characterized by severe inflammation such as pediatric Crohn's disease and radiation enteritis.
The FDA has cleared the Investigational New Drug (IND) application for OrbeShield™ for the mitigation of morbidity and mortality associated with GI ARS. OrbeShield™ has also been granted Orphan Drug and Fast Track designations by the FDA for the prevention of death following a potentially lethal dose of total body irradiation during or after a radiation disaster. OrbeShield™ development as an MCM for GI ARS is currently being supported by BARDA and NIAID contracts valued up to $26.3 million and $6.4 million, respectively.
About Soligenix, Inc.
Soligenix is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company developing products that address unmet medical needs in the areas of inflammation, oncology and biodefense. Our BioTherapeutics business segment is developing SGX301 as a first-in-class photodynamic therapy utilizing safe visible light for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, proprietary formulations of oral beclomethasone 17,21-dipropionate (BDP) for the prevention/treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) disorders characterized by severe inflammation including pediatric Crohn's disease (SGX203) and acute radiation enteritis (SGX201), and our novel innate defense regulator technology (SGX942) for the treatment of oral mucositis.
Our Vaccines/BioDefense business segment includes active development programs for RiVax™, our ricin toxin vaccine candidate, VeloThrax™, our anthrax vaccine candidate, OrbeShield™, our GI acute radiation syndrome therapeutic candidate and SGX101 and SGX943, our melioidosis therapeutic candidates. The development of our vaccine programs incorporates the use of our proprietary heat stabilization platform technology, known as ThermoVax™. Currently, this business segment is supported with up to $57 million in government grant and contract funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Additionally, Soligenix has an exclusive worldwide collaboration with Intrexon Corporation (XON) focused on the joint development of SGX101 for the treatment for melioidosis.
For further information regarding Soligenix, Inc., please visit the Company's website at www.soligenix.com.
This press release may contain forward-looking statements that reflect Soligenix, Inc.'s current expectations about its future results, performance, prospects and opportunities, including but not limited to, potential market sizes, patient populations and clinical trial enrollment. Statements that are not historical facts, such as "anticipates," "estimates," "believes," "intends," "potential," or similar expressions, are forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results in future periods to differ materially from what is expressed in, or implied by, these statements. Soligenix cannot assure you that it will be able to successfully develop, achieve regulatory approval for or commercialize products based on its technologies, particularly in light of the significant uncertainty inherent in developing vaccines against bioterror threats conducting preclinical and clinical trials of vaccines, obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing vaccines, that product development and commercialization efforts will not be reduced or discontinued due to difficulties or delays in clinical trials or due to lack of progress or positive results from research and development efforts, that it will be able to successfully obtain any further funding to support product development and commercialization efforts, including grants and awards, maintain its existing grants which are subject to performance requirements, enter into any biodefense procurement contracts with the US Government or other countries, that it will be able to compete with larger and better financed competitors in the biotechnology industry, that changes in health care practice, third party reimbursement limitations and Federal and/or state health care reform initiatives will not negatively affect its business, or that the US Congress may not pass any legislation that would provide additional funding for the Project BioShield program. These and other risk factors are described from time to time in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, but not limited to, Soligenix's reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K. Unless required by law, Soligenix assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements as a result of new information or future events.
To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/soligenix-receives-additional-niaid-funding-to-advance-development-of-orbeshield-in-gi-ars-300133636.html
WOW!!!! I bet somethin was puckered! LOL
Red Angus Wednesday, 08/26/15 10:26:13 PM
Re: None
Post # of 60150
Here are two comments I liked from Judge Kaplan to ZTE’s attorney, Mr. Straus, during the hearing:
THE COURT...But I would advise you to be very careful what you designate because you are compiling quite a track record in this case here. I see obstruction all over the place, not in a technical obstruction of justice criminal case sense, but obstruction of legitimate discovery, and I am not going to stand for it for much longer.
……………………………………
THE COURT: Mr. Straus, my late senior partner, when I started in practice, used to say when you are digging yourself a hole in the courtroom and it's getting deeper, the time to stop digging has arrived.
The time to stop digging has arrived.
MR. STRAUS: Thank you, your Honor.
True, it could be denied as a sanction.
Z is kind of maneuvering in quicksand at this stage of the game. Kaplan could put a brick on their head. LOL
Doc #235... I kind of have to agree with ZTE on this one. I think they should be able to discuss the financial harm issue with V execs. V needs to prove some actual damages to get punitives. Z may get this one granted for them, at least in some form or fashion, provided they haven't waited too long to bring it. Seems this could have been brought earlier to me instead of right at the discovery cut-off deadline, but we'll see what Kap says about it.
We can't forget that actual damages are a part of this case. If you can't prove any actual damages, you don't get punitive damages. What can V prove in actuals? That is part of the exposure the defendant is facing and, personally, I think they should have a right to explore that in discovery and not be blindsided with some figure during the trial. Kaplan has already held that Z breached the NDA, so it's all about damages. Unless this motion is untimely, I kinda feel he's going to give them some of what they're asking for on this one. Look forward to reading V's response. I'd like to see the argument V has that Z isn't entitled to any discovery targeted at eliciting testimony related solely to the actual damages and irreparable harm issue. I'll keep the popcorn ready for the zapper. LOL
That worked! Thanks!
Thank Don! I'll try that.
My iHub iPhone app been crashing the last 2 days. Just opens up for a second and then shuts off. Reset my phone but still no dice. Let's get'er fixed boys, and gals.
Thanks!
JJ
Check out the trade halts list today http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=TradeHalts
I believe, out of extreme caution, that the Court will likely set maybe a 1 hour sanctions hearing before ruling on V's requested sanctions, and possibly assessing a fine against Z. He doesn't have to, but he appears to me to be going the extra mile to be certain his ruling would hold up on appeal. We'll see, but I think the chances of there being a hearing before a ruling are pretty good.
Sanctions, by their very nature, are levied as a result of willful misconduct. Any monetary sanction the judge levies will NOT be trebled. Also, V may not get a penny of it as it may be awarded as a fine. V WILL get their costs and attorney's fees related to having to bring their sanctions motion. I think you can pretty well bank on that. There will also be no multiple of treble damages for that either. There are no treble damages in sanctions.
Once the NDA damages are determined, again, there will be no treble damages awarded. In a case allowing an award of treble damages for willfulness you are limited to NO MORE than treble damages. In this case, V is seeking PUNITIVE or EXEMPLARY damages. They are NOT limited to an award of treble damages. The punitive damages award might end up being 4X actual damages, 10 times actual damages, 20 times actual damages, there is no bright line rule on what the exact multiple might end up being, but there IS NO MULTIPLE to throw in there in the award. Punitive damages awards may often totally dwarf the actual damage award, although certainly not always true.
I have no idea what the actual damage award may end up being in this case, so I haven't, and won't even attempt to speculate what they can prove it to be. I do guess, however, that the punitive damage award in this case has the potential of dwarfing the actual damages award. JMO of course FWIW, which is probably nothing.
copperslash Friday, 08/21/15 11:24:37 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 59999
Post # of 60002
agree. Not even looking at the infringement aspect. Also, I was not tripling the sanctions. I was just putting the sanction potential at $100M (up to Kaplan). NDA disclosure damages at $100M if V can show that it hurts their negotiation position with other potential licensees (V has been requested to lay out the damages by Kaplan). Suspecting it was a willful disclosure of the NDA, then V could get a multiple on the damages. I am guessing triple the damages, $300M, for a total of $400M. Z still need to settle with V on using the essential patents and I put that at $500M+ of the life of the patents. So, I think it could get to $1B especially with all of Z's boo boos with Kaplan.
V is seeking punitive damages. IF the damages were to be $100M there is no multiple for willfulness as there would be for willful patent infringement. This is a punitive damages case, and there is no bright line rule as to what the multiple could end up being. It is what the fact finder (jury) finds to be appropriate to punish the wrongdoer and to deter such future conduct.
Sanctions also has no multiplier. The judge could fine Z for their conduct and monetarily sanction them, and their attorneys, for violating the rules, and to deter them from such future conduct. This type of sanction isn't necessarily based upon damages at all. This is to get the party, and their attorneys potentially, in line.
copperslash Friday, 08/21/15 10:16:56 AM
Re: None
Post # of 59998
Z now has 1.4B cash
The normal brain says we can afford to settle and get back to growing market share around the world.
The abnormal brain says more money to short V stock, pay for a disinformation campaign, and cheat the system
just my WAG, but Z has been so out of line that the sanctions could exceed $100M and the damages could be tripled and exceed $300M and Z will still have to settle this for another $500M+
It really could get to $1B for Z.
copperslash, you have evidently been looking at the LOWEST bid on Level II. .438 IS the lowest bid, but there are 10 MMs with higher bids. There's 14 MMs with higher bids right now. Top bid is .59 through ARCX. Just pointing out that you've been looking at the lowest bid, and not the highest my friend.
copperslash Friday, 08/21/15 10:36:57 AM
Re: rampuntzel post# 59996
Post # of 59997
yep. Strangely enough the bid is .438 again
Is it being exactly .438 just a coincidence?
Spook, V filed the NDA case in SDNY. Later, Z filed a FRAND lawsuit in Delaware. That case got transferred, under not so pleasant circumstances for Z, to SDNY and was combined with the NDA case solely for the purpose of joint discovery. There are still two separate lawsuits pending in SDNY, one for FRAND and one for breach of the NDA.
Good find, Giovinco, and completely consistent with my initial post on this subject. Again, I'm still not sure the court is going to order the disclosure of these 3rd party NDAs.
This one, whether provided for in the instant NDA or not, is what V & Z are putting forth in the motion.
"Indeed, well-drafted NDAs expressly allow for this situation and typically require, at a minimum, that the individual notify the other party so that other party may request that the court issue a protective order."
"Also, if the nonparty (or affected party) files a motion to quash [protective order in this instance], the judge may decide, after full briefing, that the subpoena is improper or that the scope of disclosure subpoenaed can be limited."
I look forward to seeing what Judge Kaplan does with it. It will take a full blown hearing on it after the 3rd parties file their motions for protective order so it will be a while before we know the result of this motion, as well as the protective order motions that will likely get filed.
Giovinco Wednesday, 08/19/15 07:46:51 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 59927
Post # of 59935
Must Read, Is it legal for a person to reveal confidential information after being subpoenaed to court if he has signed a NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) that restricts him from revealing confidential information?
http://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-for-a-person-to-reveal-confidential-information-after-being-subpoenaed-to-court-if-he-has-signed-a-NDA-Non-disclosure-agreement-that-restricts-him-from-revealing-confidential-information
Gil Silberman, Founding Partner, Equity LLP:
Most nondisclosure agreements have a provision allowing the recipient to reveal confidential information in order to comply with legal process, which would include a subpoena. If the NDA is silent on the subject, there is probably an implied exception for legal process, because if a court orders you to do something that is in violation of the contract you must nevertheless do what the court says (though you do have avenues for appealing or challenging the court decision).
To limit disclosure you can try to quash a subpoena, ask for a protective order (meaning, the court will order that the information you give under subpoena is limited, is seen by a limited list of people, and/or kept confidential), or reach an agreement with the opposing party's lawyers on that topic. That lets the case proceed while minimizing and protecting the information that is supposed to be confidential under the contract. Or you could settle the case before discovery occurs.
Some NDAs are much more explicit on what you're supposed to do in the event of a subpoena, requiring you to do some or all of the above, or requiring you to promptly notify and cooperate with the disclosing party so that they can.
If you fail, or you are unable (due to your fault or nobody's fault), to do what the contract promises you are caught between two legal obligations. On the one hand, if you flaunt the court's order you are in contempt of court. On the other, if you honor the court order you have broken the contract. Depending on the circumstances, most people would choose breaking a contract over being in contempt of court.
Matthew Bohrer, Assistant State's Attorney, licensed in three jurisdictions :
The court power to force you to answer a subpoena is superior to your private contract.
Put differently: if you refuse to testify due to an NDA, the court may hold you indefinitely in contempt, in jail, until you decide to speak.
Later, if you're sued for the NDA, you will likely have a duress defense to any damages.
Dana H. Shultz, Lawyer for startups in or coming to the U.S. :
Yes, the individual is expected to comply with a court order.
Indeed, well-drafted NDAs expressly allow for this situation and typically require, at a minimum, that the individual notify the other party so that other party may request that the court issue a protective order.
Raees Mohamed, tech & internet lawyer/start-ups/corporate/prof. of law:
In addition to what has already been stated, the choice of law clause in your NDA (if there is one) may point to governing law of a state, if different from the subpoena originating state, that provides for additional exceptions to disclosure.
Also, if the nonparty (or affected party) files a motion to quash, the judge may decide, after full briefing, that the subpoena is improper or that the scope of disclosure subpoenaed can be limited.
Red, (a) It's easy for ZTE to appear cooperative when they know that the 3rd parties have already, and will, object to disclosure of their NDAs, isn't it? (b) We know how ZTE works. One expect that whatever licensing rates they pay may be considerably lower than others may pay, and I'd venture likely before FRAND rates. (c) The basis of VRNG's suit they filed is the violation of the NDA by ZTE. On one had, it's absolutely wrong for ZTE to have violated this confidential agreement and shared it with others. On the other hand V is asking that ZTE violate MULTIPLE other NDAs BECAUSE? An NDA is only a sanctuary if VRNG is a party to it? All these other NDAs aren't worth the same protection under the law that V thinks theirs is? This doesn't even stand to reason at all to me. It's absolute hypocrisy to try to force ZTE to reveal their NDAs, IMO. (d) I think (b) pretty much covers my opinion on that. ZTE is notorious for fighting the hell out of licensing agreements, and hence are far more likely to get considerably better rates, likely well under FRAND rates, simply because of how hard they fight licensing.
I'm not sure why this motion was ever brought myself as it seems to be in absolute conflict with VRNG's position in bringing the suit in the first place. I don't know how it will turn out, but this is a motion that I very much question the strategy. I don't know all the inside info, but this one kind of reeks to me. I have a hard time thinking the judge will greet this one with a love of favor, as he HAS done in V's past motions. Just because they've had him nodding YES for quite a few of their motions doesn't mean it's time to try to make him jump off a cliff to give V the nod on this one. I'm wondering IF this were to be granted if it wouldn't be reversible error on appeal? The Court can sanction ZTE, but he shouldn't be rounding up all the other licensors and usurping their rights even though he may be 100% right in sanctioning ZTE. ZTE did the wrong, not these 3rd parties to the NDA's that ZTE entered into with them on these licensing agreements. I don't think the judge will do it anyway, and also think reversible error could be looming ahead if he does. JMO of course.
Red Angus Tuesday, 08/18/15 06:57:58 PM
Re: None
Post # of 59926
I’m really not sure what’s going on re V’s request for ZTE’s NDAs with others. On the one hand it would SEEM to be a good thing to see the Agreements of others, but I wonder: (a) ZTE acts as if it’s willing to provide them (although of course they could be well aware the 3rd parties will resist) and may merely be trying to dilute arguments that it’s uncooperative with discovery requests, (b) Is this a trap, and ZTE is playing rope-a-dope, and the Agreements only relate to very cheap, low licensing rates---even below FRAND rates?; (c) Does V’s request amount to hypocrisy in asking ZTE to violate NDAs when V's position is that NDA's should be inviolable? This could possibly seriously lessen sanctions that will probably later be levied against ZTE; (d) Would V be better off trying to support its own FRAND rate proposal to ZTE rather than trying to glide in on possible low rates that ZTE worked out with others, and may later argue should be applicable to V?
I may well be missing something very obvious here, but admit I’m a bit confused by this aspect of the New York controversy.
V is seeking sanctions in their motion, NOT damages, except for an award of attorney's fees and costs. They won't be giving out any damage numbers they are requesting as this is not the appropriate time. Damages, actual and punitive, come at trial, and this isn't the trial.
So, yes, you're missing it. The most relevant sanctions you will likely see, I believe, is their adverse inferences they request, which will help them in proving, potentially, both their damages and punitive damages case.
copperslash Tuesday, 08/18/15 07:31:38 PM
Re: Red Angus post# 59923
Post # of 59925
It seems irrelevant to me. Kaplan asked V what damages they are seeking. Give him those numbers or press Z for a settlement. V does not need to know what other licensing is out there with Z. Kaplan might, but V doesn't.
Or, am I missing something?
Sure wouldn't argue with that.
Patentinvestor Tuesday, 08/18/15 05:38:31 PM
Re: None
Post # of 59919
I am sure that VRNG is asking for ZTE's a license agreements to verify what ZTE has agreed to pay others vs what VRNG offered.
There were some companies that consented to the release of the info. If the 3rd party consents, then no harm and no foul to release it. However, the remaining 3rd parties objected to the release of the NDA materials by ZTE, as is their right. Those parties presumably will file for a protective order preventing any release of their NDA agreements with ZTE to Vringo. I would guess that those motions for protective order will request that there be NO disclosure of their respective NDAs, including redacted versions of their NDAs. Whether or not the Court is going to order the release of redacted versions of the objecting parties NDAs, or disallow disclosure of those NDAs at all is yet to be seen.
ZTE just said they won't release them without a court order compelling the production of those NDAs. That's a much better position for them to take than they did with Guo and say "Up Yours! I ain't coming to New York City no matter what you order." LMAO
I'm just not so sure they are going to prevail in getting their hands on all the remaining NDAs. Nobody will know until after a hearing on the motions for protective order when the judge rules on it.
Giovinco Tuesday, 08/18/15 02:57:34 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 59915
Post # of 59917
JJS, ZTE has already produced materials from 3rd parties who have consented to such production and ZTE itself represents that it can produce NDAs after an order from the Court.
I don't see the problem.
The name of the companies will be protected by protective orders.
Doc 223...I'm not so sure the Court is going to order the production of those 3rd party NDAs, nor really sure why they would be discoverable in this case. Those are the result of private negotiations that resulted in licensing agreements. Why should VRNG be entitled to them when those docs are protected by NDA agreements? Why should those NDAs be any more subject to disclosure than the NDA made the basis of the V vs ZTE lawsuit? I'm not so sure they're going to get what they want on this motion. The only ones they might get are the ones that don't move for a protective order to prevent disclosure of these NDA agreements, in which case they would get it by default. Look forward to seeing what His Honor does on this one.
SCOTUS BRIEFS ARE POSTED: vringoip.com/cgi-bin/enforcement.pl
Should have earnings released after the bell today.
.075? WTF
JJ’S DISCLAIMER: I’m NOT a lawyer, and have no special exposure to all the matters that VRNG is doing in its patent litigation, nor it’s attempted enforcement of the NonDisclosure agreement in NYC, nor anything they are attempting to do anywhere else in the world, or the U.S.. You may be subject to a number of terrible consequences in this investment in this penny stock. Invest appropriately, exit appropriately, hold it, run like hell, or buy all you want, I don’t care. I am not posting to get anyone to invest in VRNG, exit their position, or hold the stock. My position is nominal at this point compared to many. With that said, I am going to opine, as a layman and an individual that does NOT advise ANYONE to invest in ANY stock, and particularly VRNG.
There have been a few lawyers that have posted on the boards, and some still do occasionally. You have to understand that those folks, even if attorneys, for the most part are NOT attorneys that practice law in NDAs, patent law, anti-trust law, international law, etc., etc. Once in a while we get some great input from those folks, but it’s not input that is based upon their particular area of practice. For instance, and attorney could be BOARD CERTIFIED on Estate Planning law, and actually know very little at all about patent law, NDA, NDRC, International Law, Patent Law, etc., etc. etc.. Doesn’t mean they can’t read the law and learn it, but it’s outside their area of practice. Even lawyers that may post here are not offering you opinions nor advice!
VRNG has MULTIPLE lawyers representing them in the ZTE case in SDNY. There is a reason for that. EACH has some expertise in some particular area of law that is involved in this case. Stack on top of that lawyers that have not made a Pro Hac Vice appearance backing these guys up, and you extend that even further. A dentist doesn’t do heart surgery. A brain surgeon doesn’t treat colon cancer. These actions, and the ZTE action, ARE extremely specialized, so I certainly don’t ever make my opinions in any way mean to appear that I have specialized qualifications for my opinions, nor never will. For the most part I have provided procedural information, although I have made my FWIW opinions on occasion, and I shall do so after this post as soon as I can.
I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY AND DO NOT OFFER ANY LEGAL OPINIONS, NOR INVESTMENT ADVICE, EVER! Not on VRNG, nor any other stock. Sell it, buy it, hold it, I don’t care. I may own it, may buy it, may sell it, and I will give no notice what I am doing one way or the other.
IF my life tonight permits it, I'm going to post a rather lengthy post on the ZTE situation. If not tonight, tomorrow some time.
And Spooky, I am NOT an attorney, never was, don't profess to be, and it's in RED letters on my profile, and has been there for years. I've simply been a litigation assistant for almost 40 years with general practice firms, so my posts are ALWAYS FWIW, and likely not worth much by my own admission.
JJ