Google Info for Reference Purposes

GOOGLE (Search Engine)

Seeking Alpha articles (well worth reading):

Q1: When is the WoC due to be submitted to the Supreme Court

A1: It was submitted on the morning of May 14th, 2015


Q2: What happens now that the WoC has been denied?

A2: Vringo has 25 days to submit a request for a rehearing of the WoC in accordance with SCOTUS Rule 44.


Maybe this case will provide “substantial grounds” for a rehearing:


SCOTUS Denial. We are listed on page 60:

Vringo PR after the denial:

Here is a copy of Google’s Opposition Brief:      Google Opposition Brief 29Jul2015

Here is a copy of Vringo’s response:      Vringo Response to Opposition Brief 11Aug2015

Here is a copy of BPLA’s Amicus Brief:     14-1358 BPLA Amicus Brief

Here is a copy of i4i’s Amicus Brief:      i4i Amicus Brief ISO IP Engine

Related: CAFC released TEVA vs Sandoz opinion:

L2A: (Calendar)

L2B: (Case Search)

(WoC date breakdown paragraphs 1 – 5)

(GVR definition)

(TEVA Clone SCOTUS Case)

(SCOTUS Calendar Sept2015 Term)

(SCOTUS Case Distribution Schedule)

(SCOTUS Case Distribution Schedule Info)

(SCOTUS 2015 Orders – Starts 5Oct)


(GOOG CAFC Appeal)

(Conference Case Listing for Sept 28th)

(Excellent background on the typical WoC)

(What happens to our WoC once submitted for Conference? Read pages 4 – 6)

(Jury Verdict from EDVA)   EDVA_Jury_Verdict

Q3: What is the background on the lawsuit versus Google

A3: On September 15, 2011, our wholly-owned subsidiary, I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) initiated litigation in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against AOL Inc., Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., and Target Corporation (collectively, the “Defendants”) for infringement of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,420 and 6,775,664, which I/P Engine acquired from Lycos, Inc.

 Trial commenced on October 16, 2012, and the case was submitted to the jury on November 1, 2012. On November 6, 2012, the jury ruled in favor of I/P Engine and against the Defendants. After upholding the validity of the patents-in-suit, and determining that the asserted claims of the patents were infringed by the 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%. The jury also awarded I/P Engine a total of approximately $30.5 million. On November 20, 2012, the clerk entered the District Court’s final judgment.

On January 3, 2014, the District Court ordered that I/P Engine recover an additional sum of $17.32 million from Defendants for supplemental damages and prejudgment interest. On January 21, 2014, the District Court ruled that Defendants’ alleged design-around is “nothing more than a colorable variation of the system adjudged to infringe,” and accordingly I/P Engine “is entitled to ongoing royalties as long as Defendants continue to use the modified system.” On January 28, 2014, the District Court ruled that the appropriate ongoing royalty rate for Defendants’ continued infringement of the patents-in-suit that “would reasonably compensate [I/P Engine] for giving up [its] right to exclude yet allow an ongoing willful infringer to make a reasonable profit” is a rate of 6.5% of the 20.9% royalty base previously set by the District Court. The Defendants also filed a separate appeal related to these matters.

On August 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held that the claims of the patents-in-suit asserted by the Company against the Defendants are invalid for obviousness. On August 20, 2014, Vringo announced that I/P Engine would seek en banc review of the Federal Circuit’s decision.

On October 15, 2014, I/P Engine filed a petition for rehearing en banc, in which it argues that the majority’s opinion in this case presents important questions of law and is at odds with a series of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions which do not allow appellate judges to disregard a jury’s detailed findings under these circumstances. I/P Engine argued that review is particularly appropriate here, where the panel majority not only failed to adopt the proper legal standard, but explicitly rejected it.

On December 15, 2014, the Federal Circuit denied I/P Engine’s petition for rehearing of the case en banc and consequently, we announced that I/P Engine will seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) of the Federal Circuit’s decision. I/P Engine intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which requests review of the Federal Circuit’s decision, by the May 14, 2015 deadline.

The court dockets for the foregoing cases are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records website,, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the website for the Supreme Court of the United States,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s