% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Vringo, Inc. Message Board

  • ran.dog80 ran.dog80 Aug 25, 2012 1:32 PM Flag

    Wow, READ THIS!... Guess who lost the case for Samsung...

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.!!!! Guess who is council for the Google case vs Vringo, Yep... Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

    Please see attached links for more details!

    Now scroll down to the article below to: "Apple wins big in patent suit against Samsung"...and click on it. Look who lost the case, Q.E.U. & S. LLP. His firm is now hired as Google's council, ( the defendants against Vringo ) and just lost the biggest case ever for infringement. If you're an attorney you know the magnitude of this loss and the implications that follow / haunt you in your upcoming cases. THIS IS HUGE!

    Vringo's attornies have been flawless up to now in best representing all subject matter, critical dates, proof, and documented facts assosiated with Vringo's patent infringement case against Google et al. With this loss attached squarely on the shoulders of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP., now Google's attornies, it suggests there can be more holes, or (doubt) in the firms theories and proves they can be wrong on critical issues and beaten in a courtroom trial. That impact in today's legal society shows his firm failed to properly provide evidence or the ability to create reasonable doubt against Apple's legal team's ability to provide a more solid burden of proof. Samsung's attempt to infringe & losing, quickly draws your attention to it's attornies, and depicts a portrait as the firm who lost their clients case. Firms looking to be represented will now steer clear of them because of this loss. It speaks volumes for their inability to present another clients case, Google, without drawing attention to the fact they fell short.

    I would put my all my money on Vringo's legal team and have by buying thousands of shares in support of the true patent holders of the technology involved in this case.

    You won't see this in any headlines or on any of the televised financial news programs so I'll present it here on Vringo's
    behalf: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan lose biggest case in history against Apple Co. for PATENT INFRINGEMENT, involving two of todays biggest mobile conglomerates.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Quinn Emanuel cannot afford 2 high profile patent case losses in a row, settlement coming...

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • This does poke holes in the kind of defense Google is going to present at trial. I'm sure VRINGO'S attorney team will use this to plan a proper defense along with stated case law in previous cases to win this case "if" it goes to trial.

    • sure thing old man.. I made a typo.. losting should be losing.. would've thought by your age you'd be able to glean a typo from outright misspelling like attornies..

      that's ok buddy.. just focus on the one part that you can pick at instead of addressing your wreckless portfolio management. just trying to keep from having to support yet another effing self absorbed baby boomer with my tax dollars once they gamble it all away.

    • sfbachelor, can you explain the meaning of your sentence, I'm getting old and struggle with interpretation sometimes.

      B) I am aware that it is a sales job but like I said I believe you're overstating the effects of losting one case on a totally unrelated case.

      I hate being so dumb, thanks for the help, you're rally smart.

    • good work...

      your post deserve 5 star ratings....

      folks, on here need to start rating usefull and informative posts, such as your randog..

      job welll done...

    • yes salnkrisly, i understand that portion but what happens if they agree to settle and issue GOOGLE shares. What happens with people holding long call options on VRNG? how does the options gets factored?

    • Meet and Confer” Requirements
      Virtually all courts now require the parties to engage in some sort of discussion concerning
      disagreements, including discovery disputes, before filing a motion. For example,
      local rule 3.01(g), United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, provides
      in part as follows:
      (g) Before filing any motion in a civil case, except a motion for injunctive relief,
      for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or to permit
      maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
      relief can be granted, or to involuntarily dismiss an action, the moving party shall
      confer with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues
      raised by the motion, and shall file with the motion a statement (1) certifying that
      the moving counsel has conferred with opposing counsel and (2) stating whether
      counsel agree on the resolution of the motion. . . .
      All too often, counsel pays insufficient attention to the potential benefits of good faith
      compliance with these meet-and-confer rules. The assumption is made that opposing counsel
      40 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i) (2008).
      41 Wagner, 208 F.R.D. at 610-611.
      Motions for Sanctions: Riding the Storm
      is a snake in the grass and that the inappropriate discovery by plaintiffs is a gross attempt
      to take unfair advantage of the discovery rules. Sometimes this assumption is true, as discussed
      above. However, this may not always be the case. Requests or interrogatories may
      be awkwardly worded, or it could be that plaintiff’s counsel simply does not know what
      she or he is really asking for. Many times, an in-depth discussion of discovery issues with
      opposing counsel can result in agreement and a compromise that both preserves the client’s
      interests and avoids the expense and potential adverse consequences of a motion for sanctions.
      At the very least, even if the parties do not agree as to all of the issues, they may be
      able to narrow the issues to the point where defense counsel and the client feel much more
      comfortable confronting a sanctions motion. It is always nice to be able to tell the judge
      that the parties have been able to work out, through diligent effort, most or at least some of
      the discovery disputes, leaving the court only a few things to decide.
      Most courts take seriously the parties’ duty to meet and confer in good faith. Some local
      rules even specify that the “meet and confer” requirement means that parties must meet in
      person or over the phone; written or email correspondence is insufficient.42 Keep in mind
      that the “meet and confer” requirement runs both ways. If the plaintiff has failed in this duty,
      the defendant’s response can cite that failure as an excellent reason to deny any sanctions

    • This case is not going to be settled for less than a $1,000,000,000.oo

    • Best part of article, The Meat:

      The nine-member federal court jury sitting in San Jose rendered a verdict after just two-and-a-half days of deliberations. The four-week trial featured attorneys from Morrison & Foerster and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr for Apple, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for Samsung.

      The jury found that Samsung infringed most of the patents Apple sued over, and its trade dress on the iPhone and iPad, and did so willfully. It completely rejected Samsung's cross claims for infringement.

      When that judge was finished there was no room for discussion at a later date, Bam gavel meets judges desk, It's over. Google is reaching and may not like what they get!

    • Thanks Dog - great post. In a very real sense this now directly "connects" the Samsung loss with our case. This represents more than just the ethereal connection of another giant (Samsung) being felled in a patent case for north of $1B. This legal firm has been shaken big-time and Google leadership cannot be happy..AT ALL!!!

    • View More Messages
1.97-0.01(-0.51%)May 6 4:00 PMEDT