Monday, November 12, 2012 5:03:52 PM
On Friday, November 9, 2012, Dickstein Shapiro filed a motion asking Judge Jackson to award it $634,084 in prejudgment interest on the jury verdict (compounded quarterly), for an order awarding it post-judgment interest on the verdict (compounded annually), and to order the Defendants to account to Vringo for their revenues from October 1, 2012 to the present, so Vringo can be awarded supplemental infringement damages that the jury did not have a chance to consider.
From Vringo's motion, it appears that prior to the trial, the Defendants produced their revenue information through September 30, 2012, and consequently, Dr. Becker's damage opinions were only through that date. The verdict therefore does not cover any periods after that date. Therefore, Vringo is seeking a supplemental award of damages based on the Defendants' revenues from and after October 1, 2012, through the date that judgment is ultimately entered, at which time the running royalty would presumably commence.Using a conservative approximate infringement damage number of $25 million per quarter, it is reasonable to anticipate that the Defendants will owe Vringo more than $8 million per month in additional supplemental damages for infringement periods after October 1, 2012, which were not covered by the jury verdict
.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1000911-vringo-vs-google-vringo-s-motion-for-interest-and-supplemental-damages?source=nasdaq
From Vringo's motion, it appears that prior to the trial, the Defendants produced their revenue information through September 30, 2012, and consequently, Dr. Becker's damage opinions were only through that date. The verdict therefore does not cover any periods after that date. Therefore, Vringo is seeking a supplemental award of damages based on the Defendants' revenues from and after October 1, 2012, through the date that judgment is ultimately entered, at which time the running royalty would presumably commence.Using a conservative approximate infringement damage number of $25 million per quarter, it is reasonable to anticipate that the Defendants will owe Vringo more than $8 million per month in additional supplemental damages for infringement periods after October 1, 2012, which were not covered by the jury verdict
.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1000911-vringo-vs-google-vringo-s-motion-for-interest-and-supplemental-damages?source=nasdaq
