Vringo Requests Post-Judgment Royalties of 7%
Vringo Requests New Trial Solely on Dollar Amount of Past Damages
Vringo Requests Court Amend Laches Finding
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 19, 2012--
Vringo, Inc. (NYSE MKT: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation,
development and monetization of mobile technologies and intellectual
property, today provided a summary of three motions filed with the Court
last night in its wholly-owned subsidiary I/P Engine, Inc.'s litigation
against AOL, Inc., Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett
Company, Inc., and Target Corporation (collectively, "Defendants"). The
summary is qualified in its entirety by the text of the court filings,
which are online at www.VringoInc.com
under the heading "Enforcement Activities".
On November 6, 2012, a jury in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia
ruled in favor of I/P Engine and against Defendants with respect to
Defendants' infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,314,420 and 6,775,664. After finding that the asserted claims of the
patents-in-suit were both valid, and infringed by Defendants, the jury
found that reasonable royalty damages should be based on a "running
royalty," and that the running royalty rate should be 3.5%. On November
20, the clerk entered the Court's final judgment. I/P Engine presented
evidence at trial that the appropriate way to determine the incremental
royalty base attributable to Google's infringement was to calculate
20.9% of Google's U.S. AdWords revenue, then apply a 3.5% running
royalty rate to that base.
I/P Engine's Motion for an Award of Post-Judgment
In this motion, I/P Engine requested that the Court order Defendants to
pay an ongoing running royalty for their continuing infringement of I/P
Engine's patents from November 20, the date of the entry of final
judgment, until either (i) Defendants cease their infringement or (ii)
April 4, 2016, the expiration date of the patents.
I/P Engine argued that the Court should conclude that an upward
adjustment to a 5% running royalty rate for Defendants' ongoing
post-judgment infringement is appropriate. I/P Engine's damages expert,
Dr. Stephen Becker, also reached the conclusion that there is no reason
to depart downward from the 5% royalty rate because the patents are known
to be valid and the patented technology is acknowledged to be
"mission critical" for Google.
Further, I/P Engine argued that Defendants' ongoing infringement is
undisputedly willful because Defendants are fully aware that their use
of AdWords has been adjudged to infringe all of the asserted claims of
the valid and enforceable patents-in-suit. Therefore, I/P Engine
requested that the Court enhance the ongoing royalty rate to 7% in light
of Defendants' ongoing willful infringement.
Finally, I/P Engine requested that this Court order that, among other
things, Defendants pay ongoing royalties to I/P Engine on a quarterly
basis in certified funds or by wire transfer, accompanied by a statement
certifying, under penalty of perjury, the U.S. revenue attributable to
Defendants' use of AdWords and the calculation of the royalty amount.
I/P Engine's Motion for a New Trial Solely on the
Dollar Amount of Past Damages Only [http://bit.ly/SPW5Fs]
In this motion, I/P Engine requested that the Court order a new trial
solely on the dollar amount of past damages for five reasons. Among
those reasons, I/P Engine argued that the jury's damages award is
internally inconsistent because the jury awarded 35% of I/P Engine's
initial claimed damages against four defendants, but only 3.5% of I/P
Engine’s initial claimed damages against Google.
This motion is limited solely to the amount of the past damages
award. I/P Engine posited that there were no defects in any other aspect
of the trial or jury verdict regarding Defendants' infringement of the
patents-in-suit, the validity of the patents-in-suit, the running
royalty finding, or the 3.5% running royalty rate, and the Court's use
of a special verdict form allows for the new trial to be limited to the
sole issue of the dollar amount of past damages.
I/P Engine's Motion for the Court to Amend Laches
Finding and a New Trial on Past Damages Only [http://bit.ly/ZMtoLD]
In this motion, I/P Engine requested that the Court amend its finding
regarding laches, and grant a new trial solely on the dollar amount of
past damages from September 15, 2005. I/P Engine set forth its
understanding of the procedural history relating to laches, the
applicable standards of law, and argument in support of its position.
As with the previous motion, this motion is limited solely to the
amount of the past damages award.
Defendants have also filed post-trial motions with the Court, which I/P
Engine and its counsel are reviewing, and expect to oppose.
The case is styled I/P Engine, Inc. vs. AOL Inc. et al., and is pending
in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk
Division. The case number is 2:11cv512RAJ. The court docket for the case
is publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
About Vringo, Inc.
Vringo, Inc. is engaged in the innovation, development and monetization
of mobile technologies and intellectual property. Vringo's intellectual
property portfolio consists of over 500 patents and patent applications
covering telecom infrastructure, internet search, and mobile
technologies. The patents and patent applications have been developed
internally, and acquired from third parties. Vringo operates a global
platform for the distribution of mobile social applications and services
including Facetones® and Video Ringtones which transform the basic act
of making and receiving mobile phone calls into a highly visual, social
experience. For more information, visit: www.vringoIP.com.
This press release includes forward-looking statements, which may be
identified by words such as "believes," "expects," "anticipates,"
"estimates," "projects," "intends," "should," "seeks," "future,"
"continue," or the negative of such terms, or other comparable
terminology. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not
historical facts. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks
and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially
from the forward-looking statements contained herein. Factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited
to: the inability to realize the potential value created by the merger
with Innovate/Protect for our stockholders; our inability to raise
additional capital to fund our combined operations and business plan;
our inability to monetize and recoup our investment with respect to
patent assets that we acquire; our inability to maintain the listing of
our securities on the NYSE MKT; the potential lack of market acceptance
of our products; our inability to protect our intellectual property
rights; potential competition from other providers and products; our
inability to license and monetize the patents owned by our subsidiaries;
our inability to monetize and recoup our investment with respect to
patent assets that we acquire; and other risks and uncertainties and
other factors discussed from time to time in our filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), including our quarterly
report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on November 14, 2012. Vringo
expressly disclaims any obligation to publicly update any
forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
Source: Vringo, Inc.
Investors and Media:
Executive Vice President