As an update to my previous discussion of Google's (GOOG) requests to reexamine the two Vringo (VRNG) patents it was found by a jury to infringe, the PTO today (Jan 17, 2013) issued an order granting Google's reexamination request for the '664 patent, but only in light of one of the four pieces of proposed prior art.
Specifically, the PTO examiner said, "Based on a priority date of Apr. 4, 1996, the Bowman, Culliss, and Lashkari references are determined to be intervening references, and as such do not qualify as prior art." Further, "Requestor proposed rejections based on Bowman, Culliss and Lashkari will not be Ordered and will not be further addressed."
The Examiner continued to find that the fourth of Google's cited references, Rose, does qualify as prior art and raises a substantial question of patentability. While this isn't the best of all possible outcomes for Vringo, as it would have been optimal for no reexamination whatsoever be granted, it's definitely very good news for them that three of Google's cited references won't even be considered by the Patent Office in reviewing the '664 patent.
Disclosure: I am long VRNG
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
