Replies to post #27058 on XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[High_Profits]

some comments on the shocking 897 VRNG Motion

This gave me a huge smile, tricking the court and ip engine and winning on laches. That deserves a new trial, but also 3 times damages for willful infringement for making a complete mockery of Judge jackson's court house. they have been running games with poor arguments, repeating things that were already shut down and now we find out they were actually pulling tricks on the court and ip engine. WOW sums it up

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1319#ixzz2L42XfUyg

I agree, I am not a lawyer but I would think that the judge assuming that G provided this info (not sure if they said they did or not, but regardless), not stating that they hadn't provided it, then subsequently getting a ruling in their favor and keeping quiet, reeks badly.

Its something that I would think borders in perjury no?

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1319#ixzz2L42nembq

I read quickly through all the motions, this thing jumped right off the page. This is going to raise some serious issues.

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1319#ixzz2L42sjMFc

I wonder how close this is to perjury on the part of G. Allowing a lie to continue in order to gain the upper hand..can't say JJ will be happy with this.

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1319#ixzz2L432G4bs

that's the question i have..how does/will the court view this action by G counsel, effectively 'tricking' the court. I can't see this as a minor issue.

Again, I am not a lawyer but I would think this opens G up to a bigger mess and serious legal implications.

This case is just a ball of spaghetti!

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1319#ixzz2L43F8mmL

According to the reply itself, JJ knew this argument, that they hadn't been given a copy, and ruled on it then and in post-trial motions before even reading VRNG's reply. He appears to not think it's as serious as we do. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but the reply says he asked if they had received a copy.

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1319&page=2#ixzz2L43aZAd5

Although JJ may not have been aware of GOOG's deception at the time he made his laches ruling (remember, JJ only became aware after Kenneth Brothers raised the point afterwards), he certainly was aware when he issued Order 800 as well as when he denied 835... ...but -- and this is only my own opinion -- it may have been that by the time 800 and 835 had to be issued, he may have felt that the die had already been cast and that, in spite of GOOG's deception (or "innocent negligence"), from a procedural perspective the laches train had already left the station and couldn't be undone w/o appellate intervention. Just hypothecating...

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1319&page=2#ixzz2L43dWOUW