VRINGO PROVIDES SUMMARY OF RECENTLY FILED MOTIONS IN I/P ENGINE V. AOL, GOOGLE ET AL. LITIGATION
Vringo Requests Post-Judgment Royalties of 7%
Vringo Requests New Trial Solely on Dollar Amount of Past Damages
Vringo Requests Court Amend Laches Finding
Background
On
I/P Engine's Motion for an Award of Post-Judgment Royalties [http://bit.ly/UPYkFh]
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
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.
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
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
As with the previous motion, this motion is limited solely to the amount of the past damages award.
Case Information
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
About
Forward-Looking Statements
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
Source:
Investors and Media:
Vringo, Inc.
Cliff
Weinstein, 646-532-6777
Executive Vice President
cweinstein@vringoinc.com