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.
Red, see the following regarding the Corrected Memorandum Opinion. You tell me this judge is not COMPLETELY dotting all his "i's" and crossing all his "t's". He made sure it was bullet proof! This is set up for MAJOR sanctions in this case, and the judge is absolutely making sure it will hold up on appeal. You tell me this shit ain't geared for an unsuccessful ZTE appeal on this sanction order for any abuse of the court's discretionary powers OR under the law. LOL
The following comparison of the Corrected Memorandum and the previous one were found by Rommsey on FF.
Page 16: Court's relevant statement at the bottom changed the phrase "is not a class "apex" witness." to "is not a class[ic] "apex" witness." <-- adding the [ic] to make the word classic
Page 19: Footnote 70 "303 F.R.D.3d 448," changed to "303 F.R.D. 448" <-- removing the 3d
There are only minuscule changes apart from this if we exclude the addition of the corrected note on the final page.
I read a case in the UK where a judge compelled a company to disclose all of its assets worldwide via sworn declaration in aid of execution of a judgment. This had been attempted there before but didn't float. This time it floated because this company actually had one of its business offices in the U.K. so it held up. I may run across it again and post the link. Was going to do a little research for something similar in the U.S. but haven't had time yet.
Hey Tom!
That's what I'd guessed. I think the writing was on the wall and they would have had multiple motions for protective orders filed...likely ALL of the 3rd parties. That is likely still going to hit regarding the disclosure of the licensing agreements I think. They have to have the right to object to the disclosure of these licensing agreements, do they not? ZTE put the whoopass on some of these folks and likely got more favorable licensing than these companies would want to disclose to other parties. Does ZTE care if it's disclosed? Maybe not. Do all the other 3rd parties want it disclosed? I'm not so certain. ZTE looked cooperative in this UNOPPOSED motion, now withdrawn. I think they didn't care because they KNEW The 3rd parties would request protective orders giving VRNG MULTIPLE other motions to answer, and thereby cause more attorneys fees for VRNG. That's the disclosed plan, isn't it? Cost them all you can and beat them to a pulp and make them submit.
Should be interesting what the change to the motion is, and whether or not the next one will be unopposed, or not.
Red Angus Tuesday, 08/11/15 08:38:50 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 59702
Post # of 59716
That IS sort of funny. Vringo’s counsel must feel that they aren’t asking for enough if the bad guys are willing to go along with it.
I'll bet that ZTE has already contacted the Third Parties and knows that they'll object to such disclosure. I don't like the idea of giving an automatic veto to Third Parties in the requested order anyway.
On what grounds?
That's damned sure interesting. V finally has something unopposed by Z and they withdraw it? They figure out after they filed it that Z was hiding behind the log and already had all the 3rd parties lined up to file for protective orders? Can't wait to see the next motion regarding this portion of the discovery, and whether or not the next one will be unopposed, which it may, or may not, be.
I still think Z was trying to APPEAR cooperative in this motion, while knowing the 3rd parties would oppose this motion and seek protective orders. We'll see! Better than a TV show for me! LOL
V withdrew unopposed doc # 220. LOL https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
Red, I think he's trying to make absolutely certain that the sanctions he imposes unquestionably hold up on appeal. No doubt he's bending over backwards to ensure there will be no reversal of the upcoming sanctions order. He still knows damn good and well that Guo isn't coming to the U.S., and that he will be ruling on the requested adverse inferences V wants, and other sanctions they might request. I look forward to seeing all of V's requested relief, which shouldn't take long before that comes out. V will contact Z and they will again inform them, "Why hell no Guo isn't coming! We already made that clear." V up to bat again. LOL
Red Angus Tuesday, 08/11/15 11:51:57 AM
Re: None
Post # of 59674
Kaplan does not have good things to say about ZTE. He refers to ZTE’s lack of candor, stalling and game-playing, and refers to the fact that one of the reasons the depo of Guo should be in the US is that in the US Guo would be subject to contempt of court proceedings.
Yet Kaplan still shows remarkable reserve and reticence in dealing with ZTE. Kaplan gives ZTE yet another bite at the apple in the form of the opportunity to “reconsider” its position re allowing Guo to be deposed in the US. Certainly no one can objectively say that Guo is being taken advantage of in the US, and even if ZTE still insists on refusing to comply with the US court orders requiring Guo’s depo sanction will STILL not be imposed without give ZTE yet ANOTHER opportunity to be heard on the subject!
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a US court so circumspect and tentative in dealing with anyone who has lied, stalled, and played games with it. Remarkable, really.
My prediction---and I hope I’m wrong: ZTE will say in very respectful legalese, “Stick it, Judgie boy”. And we’ll have another hearing, etc. Kaplan has already telegraphed that ZTE will not immediately suffer if it tells him to stick it at this point.
…..Of course I’m VERY glad ZTE’s motion for “mercy” was not granted, but ZTE was in fact granted mercy in the very nature of the denial of its motion. jmo
"Should they fail to do so, Vringo presumably will move for sanctions and the Court then will deal with the issue after affording all parties an
opportunity to be heard."
I'm thinking Judge Kaplan is going to set this for a full hearing once VRNG has set forth the sanctions they seek. I believe that "all parties" will not only include VRNG & ZTE, but also ZTE's soon to be ex-counsel at that hearing.
Also note in his Memorandum that he is not only basing his opinion on the law, but also based upon his discretionary powers. He's nailing this thing shut based both upon the law as well as his right to do it using the court's discretionary powers. This could be important on appeal so I'm glad he's reinforcing it both ways.
Vringo got exactly what they asked for from Judge Kaplan. He really, really, REALLY means for them to produce Guo in NYC, and they have one more chance to do it. V said they would request sanctions after they heard from the Court, with those sanctions to include adverse inferences. Kaplan authored at 27 page Memorandum Opinion to lay out his position. Looks to me like he's getting ready to unload on ZTE. All he's waiting for now is for VRNG to set forth the sanctions they now seek. I think VRNG will walk away with attorneys fees and costs awarded for having to bring the motion for sanctions as well as, most importantly, a pocket full of adverse inferences to go to trial with. I look forward to hearing from Judge Kaplan again on the sanctions motion as the next one will spill some ZTE blood on the floor.
Exactly! I was surprised by the reply. ZTE responded that IT'S RIPE! Kaplan just told them to tell him what sanctions to impose, ALSO AT HIS REQUEST, and reminiscent of HJJ's invitation to amend their pleadings in the GOOG case to plead willingness. Why are they waiting for yet ANOTHER invitation from Kaplan to set forth their requested relief regarding sanctions for Guo's refusal to appear for deposition? Wouldn't it have been better to wait and get that all in their reply rather than replying today?
Again, I think it has to be that they absolutely want Kaplan to make it clear that if Guo doesn't appear that sanctions are definitely coming. I thought it was already clear, and Z says no way he's coming, so for whatever the strategy is we now wait to hear from Kaplan again affirming his Order. WHY would Kaplan even set another deadline when ZTE has already stated absolutely that Guo isn't coming to the U.S. and IF he doesn't alter his order that it's ripe for ruling? ZTE has stated that, and made it crystal. I'd think Kaplan is wondering why he should even have to do anything at all other than impose sanctions, unless by some slim chance he were to allow the deposition to take place elsewhere, which would floor me. In fact, IF that were to occur it would suck a helluva bunch of air out of expectations of him dropping the hammer on ZTE.
Anyway, at this point it's better entertainment than I can find on the tube. This is my kind of soap opera, and it's certainly been entertaining as of late. I hope this act doesn't end up with an anti-climatic scene. I'm guessing we hear from Kaplan tomorrow. Not sure how exciting that will be given VRNG's leaving the door open for yet another variational motion to compel with the actual relief requested. Kaplan's next order may not have much zing to it, although it possibly could in some verbiage regarding what is going on with Guo. Regardless, I'm enjoying having a seat at the show. The Order coming after the next one from Kaplan is the one I think we all want to see regarding the Guo situation. Can't wait!
JJ
Kaplan has already ruled that the NDA was breached by ZTE. What VRNG is working on now, and has been working on, is proving damages and the extent of the breach. They are doing their best to prove up their case for punitive damages. They already requested an adverse inference for fraudulent inducement in Doc# 193. I suspect they will try to nail down more adverse inferences with regard to Guo that would also go towards a punitive damage award. It will be interesting to see what adverse inferences they request as sanctions related to the Guo matter. I suspect they're working on those as we speak.
ZTE admitted that IF Kaplan kept the Order in effect for Guo to be deposed in the U.S. that it was ripe for a sanctions ruling. I thought V would go right along with that. Instead, it appears to me that V is looking for an additional order from Kaplan AGAIN affirming the Order compelling Guo to come to the U.S. to be deposed. AFTER he's a no show then VRNG would at that point brief the issue and set forth appropriate adverse inferences they would want the Court to award as a sanction.
Seems to me they just wanted to get something back on file here real quick and weren't fully prepared to brief the relief they wanted for Guo's failure to appear for his depo, as ALREADY ORDERED. Maybe they're buying a little more time to think through exactly how they want the adverse inferences relating to Guo to be phrased? Don't know, but if that's not the reason it seems to be an unnecessary step because ZTE has already, unequivocally, stated that Guo ain't comin to NYC. Doesn't matter what Kaplan orders now related to that cause Guo's face will not be in the U.S.. Maybe it's an abundance of caution type thing in advance of the inevitable appeal, and they may be fishing for a more specific order from Kaplan stating that if Guo doesn't show up by X date that he will, in fact, award sanctions which may include adverse inferences, fees, costs, etc., etc.. Again, seems like an extra step in here, but I have no doubt there is a reason for it.
NOW Kaplan is definitely up to bat! LOL
HERE'S V'S RESPONSE Doc #202
https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sdny-doc-202-6aug2015.pdf
Okay, we're gonna be lookin for another order ordering Guo to appear in the U.S.. Then, when he doesn't, V is going to come up with SOME ADDITIONAL Adverse Inferences as a sanction for Guo's failure to appear. Gotta love it!!!
Doc #200..I like footnote 1:
"1 ZTE's counsel, King & Spalding LLP, was not aware of Mr. Guo's unwillingness to travel to the U.S. at the time of the prior briefing on the motion to compel Mr. Guo's deposition."
Yah, right! That's one of those things thrown in there knowing the sanctions are about to hit and they don't want to be in the path of the man carrying the big stick! Reminds me of Sargent Schultz on Hogan's Heroes. LOL
"If the Court declines to modify the Order, this motion should serve as notice that ZTE is unable to comply with the Order and, regrettably, the time would be ripe for the Court to
consider what sanction should be imposed for such noncompliance."
IF Kaplan isn't inclined to send V's attorneys over to China on that all expense paid trip then there is NO reason for a hearing and Kaplan can proceed with whatever sanctions he orders. ZTE admits the case would be ripe for sanctions if the order isn't changed allowing Guo to be deposed somewhere other than the U.S., and they have made it clear that there is no way in hell that Guo is coming to the U.S., period. ZTE also admits that there is precedent within the court's own district to mandate Guo to be deposed in the U.S. in spite of potential arrest. I HOPE that Kaplan goes ahead and proceeds with the doling out of sanctions next. There "might" be a reply filed by VRNG, but after Z's response in Doc. #200 is it really needed? I suppose V will comment as to why they shouldn't be forced to go take Guo's depo in China, even if it's an expense paid trip, but hasn't that issue already been resolved by prior order making Guo come to the U.S. to be deposed? Maybe we hear from V again, maybe not. I think Kaplan is up to bat, and hope he knocks ZTE out of the park. BATTER UP!!!!
Doc #200 "ZTE acknowledges, however, that other decisions in this District have directed parties to appear for depositions notwithstanding a reasonable fear of arrest."
There is already precedent in the SDNY to Order Guo to appear for his deposition in spite of his potential of being detained or arrested. Go Get'em Kaplan! No reason to go out on a wide latitude of discretion kick and not Order Guo to appear.
You will find in VRNG's reply that Boies does not agree with GOOG's misinterpretation of what TEVA holds, and that the material facts were decided by the jury, with such findings to only be reviewed under the standard set forth in TEVA.
You didn't think GOOG wasn't going to put up any kind of argument at all, did you? Boies will take care of it in his reply.
No. Must go back to CAFC on remand.
Document 199 is priceless LOL
Red Angus! You'll like #193, but #197 is PRICELESS!!!! LOL
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
Doc #197...Guo ain't coming to the U.S. for fear of arrest or detention because he is the target in an ongoing criminal investigation into ZTE's alleged violations of Iran sanctions. LOL
https://vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
That ought to help get an adverse inference or two. LOL
Thanks again vrng24 for posting!
JJ
Doc 193 posted. Amended Motion To Enforce Court Orders And To Sanction ZTE
vrng24.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/vrng/
IF Kaplan were to grant the Adverse Inferences request it would almost amount to a death penalty sanction.
It doesn't quite get there to a death penalty sanction, but in reality it can have almost the same effect and be much easier to survive as a sanction upon appeal.
Thanks vrng24 for uploading!!!!
I just knew they filed August 6th last year so figured it would be this week. Didn't know the day it was coming for sure.
VRINGO ANNOUNCES 2015 SECOND QUARTER RESULTS
Date : 08/04/2015 @ 4:05PM
Source : GlobeNewswire
Stock : Vringo, Inc. (MM) (VRNG)
Quote : 0.642 -0.0145 (-2.21%) @ 3:56PM
VRINGO ANNOUNCES 2015 SECOND QUARTER RESULTS
Print
Alert
VRINGO ANNOUNCES 2015 SECOND QUARTER RESULTS
NEW YORK, NY - August 4, 2015 - Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
Operating Results for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2015
As of June 30, 2015, we had approximately $22.3 million in cash and court deposits.
During the first half of 2015, our average monthly cash used in operating activities was approximately $1.3 million compared to approximately $2.2 million during the first half of 2014, a decrease of 41%.
Our net loss from continuing operations was approximately $8.5 million (including non-cash expenses) for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, mainly attributable to the following:
Operating legal costs of $5.3 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 of $1.2 million; and
Non-cash expenses of $2.0 million mainly related to equity-based compensation costs and amortization of our patents.
On a per share basis, our total net loss from continuing operations was $0.09 per basic and diluted share for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, compared to a net loss of $0.12 per basic and diluted share for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.
On June 21, 2015, approximately 13.2 million publicly traded and privately held warrants exercisable at $5.06 per share expired.
On May 4, 2015, we entered into a securities purchase agreement with certain institutional investors to purchase, in a registered direct offering, $12.5 million of senior secured convertible notes and warrants to purchase up to 5,375,000 shares of our common stock, at an exercise price equal to $1.00 per share. As of June 30, 2015, $11.3 million of principal was outstanding. As of August 4, 2015, $9.8 million of principal remains outstanding.
About Vringo, Inc.
Vringo, Inc. is engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property and mobile technologies. Vringo's intellectual property portfolio consists of over 600 patents and patent applications covering telecom infrastructure, internet search, and mobile technologies. The patents and patent applications have been developed internally, and acquired from third parties. 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 online search firms and other companies; 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
Was just noting the approximate filing date.
BIAD filed their quarterly report on August 13th last year. Should come about the same time this year.
Nothing like an NDA for that LMAO
If I were Z I sure wouldn't take it as a GOOD sign. LOL It'll be interesting to see what sanction relief V lays out this time around. I would think that motion gets refiled rather quickly so we won't have long to wait to find out.
I wouldn't mind seeing death penalty sanctions among the requested relief asking to strike all of Z's defensive pleadings. I'd have the option in my requested relief just in case the judge should be so inclined. LOL
Here's an analogy on the involvement of GOOG in the ZTE NDA case.
Let's say I/GOOG hit you with my car in December, 2012. You get a judgment against me for breaking your RIGHT LEG, and that case gets appealed. I/GOOG run into you again in December, 2014 and this time I break your LEFT LEG while the first case against me is on appeal. Just because I broke your left leg this time does not in any way increase your damages in the case in which I broke your right leg before. Two totally separate causes of action, and the latter does not increase the damages for the former.
Any GOOG involvement with regard to the NDA simply doesn't matter in the current GOOG appeal, now or ever. They simply aren't related. Different facts and totally different potential cause of action. Not saying there may not be some potential exposure for GOOG with regard to the ZTE case, and not commenting on that one way or the other. Just saying that GOOG's potential involvement with the NDA material has absolutely no affect on the I/P Engine v GOOG case on appeal now, hopefully remanded to CAFC, and followed by a remand to the trial court. It just doesn't matter in that particular case, and will never matter, IMO.
I'm almost afraid to even comment on that due to the myriad of factors that could be involved. However, keeping in mind TONS of things could happen, it would be possible that V could issue a subpoena duces tecum to a GOOG employee that would require them to appear for a deposition as well as to produce requested documents at that deposition PROVIDED the court would allow that at this point. It's "possible" under the orders in effect they may be able to do that already, I just don't know. Additionally, one would have to expect GOOG would fight the hell out of it, just because they could, if no other reason. A total myriad of things could happen IF this was to take place. It would be probable that IF there was a subpoena duces tecum issued that V would have to give the deponent 30 days notice to comply with the request to provide documents to bring to the deposition.
Again, there are really too many things to go into that could happen, but is it possible? Yes, I think it's possible if allowed by the Court.
greenaccountingbeen Friday, 07/31/15 03:27:20 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 59248
Post # of 59250
Thanks JJ.
Following up on the question I posed, do you believe Google can be forced to turn over evidence and testify as part of the ZTE drama given the latest developments? If they knew or should have known they were illegally provided confidential info (assuming this is so) , would Google be legally bound to report that to both Vringo and the authorities?
I don't believe the ZTE drama has anything at all to do with the appeal currently at SCOTUS, nor would the mention of any of this be relevant, IMO. The trial made the basis of that appeal was already concluded before any NDA was ever even entered into with ZTE. Also, it has nothing to do with any of the facts in the trial of the case in chief with GOOG. The GOOG appeal mainly deals with the manner of review used by CAFC more than it does the actual facts of the case so no, I don't believe it matters nor would be mentioned in V's reply brief.
Lastly, I DO still believe GOOG's response is timely filed with SCOTUS whether anyone can put their eyeballs on it or find out whether it's happened or not for sure. I believe it will still surface and V will be filing their reply to G's response.
nfp Friday, 07/31/15 02:01:22 PM
Re: greenaccountingbeen post# 59243
Post # of 59247
Very interesting point. JJ you'll probably think this is ridiculous but had to ask: could it be possible that Google paused for a moment before submitting their response to the Supreme Court, because if they DO reply then VRNG can reply to their reply & introduce some of this new ZTE news into the discussion? Whereas if they don't reply VRNG will not have the opportunity to do so? Or is that just ignorant crazy talk?
I believe GOOG's brief can only be obtained through Lexis or Westlaw, but might be wrong. The docket entry for the filing should show up on the SCOTUS site soon www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=14-1358&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets Won't be able to download it there though. Lexis or Westlaw looks like the only place to get it, once it's put on there. www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/briefsource.aspx
I'm not planning to download it and pay for it as I'm not in that big of a rush to see it. I'll wait until someone else posts it or VRNG puts it up on their site. Not gonna get ruled on until at least October anyway.
$3.81 LOD. Strange trading today. 141K volume. 10 day avg vol is 18,750.
Now back to 3.86 down .04. WEIRD!!!
RVP Hit 4.34 HOD. Volume and PPS went nuts all of a sudden. Don't see any reason for it yet.
DATE/TIME/LAST/BID/ASK/VOLUME
07/28/15 12:41:17 3.85 3.81 3.86 2400
07/28/15 12:41:17 3.86 3.81 3.86 100
07/28/15 12:41:18 3.814 3.81 3.86 400
07/28/15 12:41:19 3.814 3.81 3.86 100
07/28/15 12:41:19 3.814 3.81 3.86 200
07/28/15 12:41:19 3.814 3.81 3.86 12200
07/28/15 12:41:19 3.814 3.81 3.86 200
07/28/15 12:41:22 3.86 3.86 3.90 7007
07/28/15 12:41:23 3.86 3.86 3.90 1700
07/28/15 12:41:26 3.90 3.86 3.90 200
07/28/15 12:41:27 3.90 3.90 3.93 168
07/28/15 12:41:29 3.93 3.93 3.95 300
07/28/15 12:41:30 3.93 3.93 3.99 100
07/28/15 12:41:31 4.00 3.93 4.00 100
07/28/15 12:41:36 3.93 3.94 4.00 100
07/28/15 12:41:46 3.94 3.94 4.00 100
07/28/15 12:42:02 4.00 3.94 4.01 200
07/28/15 12:42:23 4.01 3.95 4.01 500
07/28/15 12:42:31 4.01 3.96 4.01 500
07/28/15 12:42:34 4.01 3.96 4.01 500
07/28/15 12:42:35 4.01 3.96 4.01 500
07/28/15 12:42:40 4.01 3.96 4.01 42
07/28/15 12:42:43 4.01 3.96 4.04 110
07/28/15 12:42:58 4.03 4.03 4.04 100
07/28/15 12:43:00 4.03 4.03 4.04 100
07/28/15 12:43:01 4.04 4.00 4.04 200
07/28/15 12:43:02 4.00 4.00 4.04 2700
07/28/15 12:43:04 4.04 4.00 4.04 2400
07/28/15 12:43:05 4.04 4.00 4.04 2400
07/28/15 12:43:09 4.00 4.00 4.08 100
07/28/15 12:43:18 4.08 4.02 4.12 100
07/28/15 12:44:31 4.02 4.02 4.14 100
07/28/15 12:44:35 4.02 4.02 4.14 100
07/28/15 12:44:36 4.14 4.02 4.14 200
07/28/15 12:44:37 4.14 4.02 4.15 400
07/28/15 12:44:37 4.14 4.14 4.15 1
07/28/15 12:44:45 4.15 4.09 4.18 100
07/28/15 12:44:58 4.18 4.10 4.18 100
07/28/15 12:45:05 4.18 4.10 4.20 400
07/28/15 12:45:05 4.18 4.10 4.20 300
07/28/15 12:45:05 4.11 4.10 4.20 1200
07/28/15 12:45:05 4.18 4.10 4.20 200
07/28/15 12:45:27 4.19 4.15 4.20 100
07/28/15 12:45:27 4.20 4.15 4.20 1200
07/28/15 12:45:28 4.20 4.15 4.22 300
07/28/15 12:45:38 4.30 4.24 4.30 100
07/28/15 12:45:38 4.30 4.24 4.30 100
07/28/15 12:45:38 4.30 4.24 4.30 300
07/28/15 12:45:38 4.30 4.24 4.30 400
07/28/15 12:45:38 4.30 4.24 4.30 400
07/28/15 12:45:38 4.30 4.24 4.30 500
07/28/15 12:45:38 4.30 4.24 4.30 500
07/28/15 12:45:38 4.30 4.24 4.30 500
07/28/15 12:45:38 4.30 4.24 4.30 400
07/28/15 12:46:09 4.30 4.24 4.34 100
07/28/15 12:46:13 4.34 4.27 4.34 100
07/28/15 12:46:18 4.34 4.27 4.34 400
07/28/15 12:46:18 4.34 4.27 4.34 400
07/28/15 12:46:18 4.34 4.27 4.34 800
07/28/15 12:46:18 4.34 4.27 4.34 800
07/28/15 12:46:22 4.34 4.27 4.35 800
07/28/15 12:46:22 4.34 4.27 4.35 800
07/28/15 12:46:23 4.34 4.27 4.35 400
07/28/15 12:46:23 4.34 4.27 4.35 800
07/28/15 12:46:29 4.27 4.25 4.27 100
07/28/15 12:46:39 4.24 4.24 4.32 100
07/28/15 12:46:39 4.16 4.15 4.32 1500
07/28/15 12:46:39 4.15 4.15 4.32 11000
07/28/15 12:46:43 4.15 4.15 4.32 7500
07/28/15 12:46:44 4.15 4.12 4.32 6800
07/28/15 12:46:45 4.15 4.12 4.15 20
07/28/15 12:46:45 4.15 4.12 4.15 2800
07/28/15 12:46:49 4.15 4.12 4.18 1490
07/28/15 12:46:52 4.18 4.12 4.20 100
07/28/15 12:46:56 4.18 4.12 4.26 79
07/28/15 12:46:58 4.237 4.12 4.25 100
07/28/15 12:46:58 4.237 4.12 4.25 200
07/28/15 12:46:58 4.237 4.12 4.25 200
07/28/15 12:46:58 4.237 4.12 4.25 200
07/28/15 12:46:58 4.237 4.12 4.25 200
07/28/15 12:46:58 4.237 4.12 4.25 200
07/28/15 12:46:58 4.237 4.12 4.25 200
07/28/15 12:46:58 4.237 4.12 4.25 100
07/28/15 12:46:58 4.237 4.12 4.25 300
07/28/15 12:46:59 4.237 4.12 4.25 100
07/28/15 12:46:59 4.237 4.12 4.25 100
07/28/15 12:46:59 4.237 4.12 4.25 200
07/28/15 12:46:59 4.237 4.12 4.25 100
07/28/15 12:46:59 4.228 4.12 4.25 200
07/28/15 12:47:22 4.11 4.10 4.25 400
07/28/15 12:47:23 4.10 4.10 4.24 300
07/28/15 12:47:24 4.10 4.10 4.24 2500
07/28/15 12:47:25 4.10 4.09 4.24 4310
07/28/15 12:47:30 4.09 4.07 4.15 200
07/28/15 12:48:21 4.14 4.07 4.15 100
07/28/15 12:48:21 4.15 4.07 4.15 100
07/28/15 12:48:21 4.15 4.07 4.15 4900
07/28/15 12:48:39 4.15 4.07 4.22 100
07/28/15 12:49:10 4.01 4.01 4.20 320
07/28/15 12:49:11 4.01 4.00 4.11 300
07/28/15 12:49:13 4.00 4.00 4.21 2000
07/28/15 12:49:14 4.00 4.00 4.21 2000
07/28/15 12:49:14 4.00 4.00 4.21 300
07/28/15 12:49:17 3.96 3.95 4.00 600
07/28/15 12:49:19 4.05 3.95 4.05 100
07/28/15 12:49:19 4.05 3.95 4.05 100
07/28/15 12:49:19 4.05 3.95 4.05 100
07/28/15 12:49:19 4.05 3.95 4.05 200
07/28/15 12:49:19 4.05 3.95 4.05 300
07/28/15 12:49:19 4.05 3.95 4.05 200
07/28/15 12:49:28 4.05 3.95 4.10 400
07/28/15 12:49:28 4.0301 3.95 4.10 400
07/28/15 12:49:28 4.09 3.95 4.10 100
07/28/15 12:49:52 4.08 3.98 4.10 100
07/28/15 12:49:52 4.08 3.98 4.10 4500
07/28/15 12:49:52 3.9805 3.98 4.10 800
07/28/15 12:49:52 3.98 3.98 4.10 800
07/28/15 12:49:52 3.98 3.98 4.10 100
07/28/15 12:50:53 3.98 3.98 4.09 400
07/28/15 12:50:53 3.98 3.98 4.09 100
07/28/15 12:50:53 3.98 3.98 4.09 100
07/28/15 12:50:53 3.98 3.98 4.09 200
07/28/15 12:50:53 3.98 3.98 4.09 100
07/28/15 12:50:53 3.98 3.98 4.09 200
07/28/15 12:51:21 3.98 3.98 4.09 2000
07/28/15 12:52:12 4.05 3.97 4.08 100
07/28/15 12:52:12 4.05 3.97 4.08 7110
Most of the time you can look at when a company filed during the same period the year before and "usually" be able to guess within a day of when they'll file this time around. It's not 100%, but it works most of the time.
I don't think GOOG's SCOTUS response to VRNG's Petition for Writ will change in any way due to the ZTE suit. VRNG vs GOOG is totally unrelated. Any possible GOOG involvement just relates to the VRNG vs ZTE suit insofar as the appeal is concerned.
VRNG filed its 10Q on August 6th last year. Are they filing early this year? TIA
nfp Monday, 07/27/15 03:12:50 PM
Re: greenaccountingbeen post# 59139
Post # of 59145
Meanwhile the stock jumps to .48 (~+10%) on low volume & VRNG quarterly "earnings" are supposedly tomorrow.
Any other news event(s) expected?