Replies to post #51127 on XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[napkinbie]

No, it is all about Google's credibility or conduct.

The first group of appeal to be heard will be laches and jury error, and the second group of appeal will be RR and WA. As I recalled Google put together a very well post-trail motion responding to laches, and JJ quickly dismissed Vringo’s laches post trial motion. In JJ’s opinion about RR and WA, JJ questioned Google’s conduct/tactic and JJ bumped up the RR by an additional 40% based on his judgment of Google's questionable conduct/behavior.

At the core issue of laches is Google's trickery maneuver. By consolidating all appeals into one hearing, Vringo can remind the CAFC of Google's questionable conducts as expressed by JJ in the RR & WA ruling. By bringing up Googles' shady behavior, Vringo's laches argument would be more persuasive by pointing out that JJ was fooled by Google's trickery maneuver in laches, and JJ's subsequent error in laches. For this reason, Vringo should request to the CAFC to consolidate all appeals into one.

And if the CAFC overturned JJ's laches ruling and send it back to JJ, and the second time around JJ will remember of Google conduct (or misconduct) during post trial, and he will be reminded of this old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" ... Here is the link :

(I also recalled that during one of the post-trial hearing, JJ's responded to a Vringo's complain about Google's misconduct with this statement, "is it clever or unethetical..." (you have to check the Court transcript for the exact quote and the context of JJ's statement).