XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[tobinator00]

Key Conference Call Points

For those who don't have 42 minutes to stare at their computer to listen to the CC, I have noted what I thought were the key highlights of the call. My commentary is bracketed in parentheses and some information has been paraphrased. Enjoy!

You can listen to the call via: http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/4/137184.html

The following notes have time stamps given in minutes and seconds from the start of the call. If you want to listen to call specifically for the highlight points as written, simply fast forward to the time given.

(9:15) Vringo says that to correct the error a value for damages should be $120 million.

(10:10) The motions were fully briefed as of February 15th and are ripe for judicial determination.

(10:55) Vringo's damages expert concluded there is no reason to depart downward from a 5% running royalty rate due to the validity of the patents and they are mission critical to Google. Vringo is then asking another 2% i.e. 7% RR for their continued wilful infringement. (I thought 7% was a pipe dream. If Judge Jackson agrees with Becker about 5%, Vringo might have a chance at more.)

(13:00) Vringo has three lawsuits against ZTE. Two in Britain and one in Germany. Two Vringo patents were combined and jointly will be part of the trial against ZTE October 15th.

(14:35) The next minute or two reviews German court proceedures/appeal process.

(27:00) Vringo said the bar is incredibly high to be accepted and heard in foreign courts.

(31:50) Caller Question: Can the past damages error be done from the bench? Vringo Answer: Google has a 7th amendment right to trial by jury and is why they requested a new trial on damages.

(32:50) Caller Question: Earlier it was said Vringo hasn't received an orange book offer from ZTE, please explain what that means? Vringo Answer: When infringement is found and injunction almost always issues automatically unless an orange book offer has been received. (Vringo goes into explaining precisely what it is and its implication in Germany.)

(39:15) Vringo clarified and earlier comment that the past damages trial should only take 1 day.

My observations: There was a complaint not taking retail questions. Each person's name was disclosed who had a question but not their title etc. Hence, no one really knows if they did not take retail questions. Vringo repeatedly said the phrase supporting their position as being "fully supported by the evidence". I did not get any hint that they think the Judge will give them anything less than 3.5% and they made a strong case for at least 5%. Everything they said was measured or scripted. I much prefer this approach because one misplaced sentence could screw up the Google or ZTE cases.