InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 19
Posts 3085
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/01/2011

Re: None

Tuesday, 05/21/2013 7:48:15 AM

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:48:15 AM

Post# of 68424
G'morning. Its time for judge Jackson to do his righteous-jusitfy duties by giving Vringo those overdue $ any day(s)/minutes now!
_____
• On a go-forward basis, I/P Engine is entitled to more—not some 90% less—than the jury’s award for past infringement. Defendants’ contrary position should be rejected.

• Further, Defendants’ alleged design around (allegedly implemented two days before their
opposition) is nothing more than an attempt to hijack I/P Engine’s motion for ongoing royalties.
The Court should reject Google’s attempt to subvert the ongoing royalty issue here and outright reject Defendants’
alleged design-around claim as it is not properly before this Court.

• At the very least, the 20.9% apportionment should apply to the ongoing royalties...

Thanks JJ and All and good luck.



THANKS FOR SHARING!