VRNG.....know what you own along with naysayers[shorts]..... a newly detailed summation to truely absorb taken from Vringo and its new prospectus filing on Friday[October 5th - 2012]........ On February 15, 2012, the Court entered a scheduling order in the case setting the claim construction hearing for June 4, 2012 and trial for October 16, 2012. The claim construction hearing is commonly referred to as a Markman hearing after the Supreme Court case that explained the process by which courts must determine the meaning of particular terms or phrases with the claims asserted in the patent-in-suit. The claims in a patent are what determine the scope of the patent’s right to exclude infringing technology. Each claim comprises a set of limitations: specific terms or phrases that define the technology covered by the claim. The parties will apply that claim construction when presenting the case to the jury.
On March 15, 2012, Google submitted a request to the USPTO for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420, one of the two patents-in-suit. The request was deposited on March 16, 2012 and was assigned Control No. 90/009,991. Innovate/Protect expected Google to seek reexamination and believes this request is a standard and typical tactic used by defendants in patent litigation cases. The filing of a request for reexamination is the first step in a process that ordinarily takes several years. On April 26, 2012, the USPTO vacated Google’s request for ex parte reexamination for failing to follow to the requirements set forth in the USPTO’s regulations. On May 24, 2012, Google resubmitted their request to the USPTO. This resubmission purports to address the issues identified by the USPTO. On July 18, 2012 the USPTO issued a determination ordering a reexamination. On September 25, 2012 the USPTO issued a first, Non-Final Office Action. Innovate/Protect has two months from issuance of the Office Action to respond to the USPTO. Google’s request has not resulted in any delay of the dates set out in the Court’s scheduling order dated February 15, 2012. The record in the re-examination can be found on the USPTO’s website ( www.uspto.gov ) under the “Public Patent Application Information Retrieval” system or Public PAIR.
Within the Markman, or claim construction process, the court reviewed the parties competing definitions for specific terms within the asserted claims. Both parties submitted two rounds of briefing to the court that provided arguments for their proposed definitions. The opening claim construction briefs were filed on April 12, 2012, and the responsive claim construction briefs were filed on May 3, 2012. At the Markman hearing on June 4, 2012, the court heard arguments from both sides in support of their positions. On June 15, 2012, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order providing binding definitions for the contested terms. The court’s definitions to the patent claims established the boundary markings of the claimed technology and inform both parties’ expert reports and testimony as well as the parties’ arguments to the jury. The court’s Memorandum Opinion & Order construing the contested terms was filed by Vringo with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On August 16, 2012, the Court issued an amended claim construction Memorandum Order in response to a motion by Defendants.
On July 30, 2012, I/P Engine and AOL Inc. entered into a partial settlement agreement, which resulted in I/P Engine granting a partial release of AOL as to certain claims raised in the lawsuit in exchange for $100,000. AOL remains a defendant in the proceeding.
On August 2, 2012, I/P Engine and defendants Google and IAC agreed to dismiss the patent infringement claims as to Google Search and IAC’s Ask Sponsored Listings. For the avoidance of doubt, the patent infringement claims being dismissed explicitly excluded, and I/P Engine explicitly reserved and retained all rights and remedies with respect to, any and all other claims asserted in the present litigation including, without limitation, the patent infringement claims as to Google AdWords, Google AdSense for Search, Google AdSense for Mobile Search and AOL’s Search Marketplace.
Fact and expert discovery have concluded. Commencing on September 12, 2012, the parties began filing evidentiary motions requesting rulings from the Court governing what evidence will be permitted at trial. The filing of evidentiary motions prior to trial is a standard practice. Innovate/Protect expects that the Court will rule on the motions in the days immediately prior to trial.
On September 12, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss all of Innovate/Protect’s claims. Briefing was concluded on October 3, 2012. On October 4, 2012, the Court denied the Defendants' motion. In addition, the Court ordered the parties to engage in settlement discussions before the US Magistrate Judge on October 9, 2012.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
