At risk of being repetitive I would note that in my opinion it’s “game over” on the question of whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals will be forced to review its decision in the Vringo case against Google. The Appellate judges are going to have to do it, period. Those who continue to take the position of Teva’s 2-Justice dissenters, rather than Teva’s 7-Justice majority, simply won’t face reality. That battle is over. The Vringo judgment will be reinstated.
If Vringo’s stock price were not controlled the effect of Teva and the upcoming legal reality it will engender in the Vringo v Google case would of course have some positive on the pps, but the stock is being manipulated, and that’s simply the way things stand right now. Vringo’s pps is totaling divorced from the reality of the Google lawsuit (and from the ZTE proceedings, for that matter).
We don’t know who is manipulating this stock (there are many possibilities and methods that could be in play), and we don’t know when Vringo will receive its damages from Big Bad Goog, how much those damages will be, what legal costs will be included, etc. So there is much we still don’t know on the financial side, but the one big thing we DO know---and that the bears and shorts still won’t admit---is that the Google case will now result in some pretty big bucks being paid to Vringo. In case we forget just why Vringo will come out on top here, we can again look at the final language of the Teva majority:
“….the Federal Circuit did not accept Teva’s expert’s explanation as to how a skilled artisan would expect the peaks of the curves to shift. And it failed to accept that explanation without finding that the District Court’s contrary determination was “clearly erroneous.” See ibid. The Federal Circuit should have accepted the District Court’s finding unless it was “clearly erroneous.” Our holding today makes clear that, in failing to do so, the Federal Circuit was wrong.
Teva claims that there are two additional instances in which the Federal Circuit rejected the District Court’s factual findings without concluding that they were clearly erroneous. We leave these matters for the Federal Circuit to consider on remand in light of today’s opinion.
We vacate the Federal Circuit’s judgment, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.”
