Can someone else please read the 197 filing and let me know what you think. As i read it, looks like IP/VRNG is dropping its case against Google. here is the link.
Forgive me putting it simply- this case isn't a sentence, but a book. One sentence deleted doesn't take away the book. We wrongly see this case as a yes or no on the question of Google's appropriation and subsequent, financial benefit of use of VRINGO (I/P) patent (i.e., a simple sentence). The truth is Google's system is complex, with numerous instantiations of how the patent has been likely used... each with implications for financial gain and right to damages (etc.)... all detailed and comprising numerous pages of the plaintiff's claim (the book). Some of these were surely speculative.
If none of that makes sense, suffice it to say that at the end of the day, the claim is a substantial hedge. The lesser, insignificant branches will be trimmed, but it will remain a hedge.
Entirely positive where it concerns Vringo- and showcasing Google's negligence...
OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE INC. AND IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC.’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS FOR
I/P ENGINE’S VIOLATION OF MAY 2, 2012 COURT ORDER
Google Inc. and IAC Search & Media, Inc.’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Rule
37 Sanctions (“Motion”) is premature, improper, and unnecessary. Further, as set forth below,
Defendants’ request to preclude I/P Engine from asserting infringement claims against Google
Search and IAC Search’s Ask Sponsored Listings is moot because I/P Engine has dropped those
allegations from the case.
Had Defendants satisfied this Court’s meet and confer requirement on this issue,
Defendants would have known that I/P Engine had decided to drop those claims. I/P Engine did
not include those systems in its supplemental infringement contentions, an admission that I/P
Engine would not continue pursuing those accused systems, and provided explicit notice of its
decision to Defendants on July 25, 2012. Ex. 1. Moreover, as of July 2, I/P Engine had nothing
more to supplement. Defendants however refuse to withdraw their Motion.
Defendants “asked that Plaintiff confirm whether it would drop its allegations against
Google Search and Ask Sponsored Listings.” Brief in Support of Google Inc. and IAC Search &
Media, Inc.’s Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions (“Brief”) at 4. “Plaintiff agreed to provide a response 2
early in the next week of July 9.” Id. Without waiting for a response, Defendants unilaterally
resorted to the filing of this Motion.
Any perceived prejudice to Defendants was at their own
making. Indeed, counsel for Google and IAC was attending a deposition with counsel for I/P
Engine on July 11, 2012. Instead of simply asking to clarify this issue, they filed the present
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions should be denied and Defendants’
request that this Court preclude I/P Engine from asserting infringement claims against Google
Search and IAC Search’s Ask Sponsored Listings should be dismissed as moot.
VRNG needs to issue a PR and inform investors what this means. Not every investor is a lawyer. The person that started this thread is actually smart enough because he/she asked an intelligent question that might prevent people from loosing money just, in case.
Here the doc 190 that contains motion 189 http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/2:2011cv00512/271949/190/
In this doc, GOOG is requesting that VRNG supply additional data to back up claims. VRNG has not supplied yet, apparently, and, hence, GOOG in doc 197 is assuming that VRNG is dropping this claim (one particular issue - Google search and IAC Search´s Ask Sponsored links).
Not sure what this claims amounts to in terms of damages and all (and if it has any negative impact on the lawsuit at all)
My interpretation of this filing is that the Court ordered VRNG to give more evidende no later then July 2 and this has not happened. I am looking to take a long position in VRNG but will hold off for now as I want to read this filing again and try to find more info or see comments from longs who understand this better then me. Overall I find this filing weakening VRNG's position.
Good luck to the longs.
Why dont you start by reading all the docs from the beginning then maybe you'll have a clue about what they are dropping. It is just one claim in the over-all lawsuit.
I deleted the harsher comments I had for you.
I read the 197 and the 189 which it references, the 189 states Google is asking to be dropped from the case and 197 states that is a non issues since IP is withdrawing its case against Google.
How do you read it?