ZTE for Reference Purposes

ZTE (Australia – Infrastructure & Mobile Devices)

14Aug2015: Australia (Judge Yates): The first respondent (ZTE Australia) be given leave to file and serve an Amended Defence to the applicant’s (Vringo Infrastructure) Amended Statement of Claim filed 5 May 2015.

Link: https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/FEDERAL/P/NSD1010/2013/order_list#;javascript:void(0);

Q1: What is the current status

A1: The ‘212 Patent remains in suit in Australia. The amended complaint to include ZTE Corp (China) to the lawsuit was submitted on May 5th, 2015 by Vringo.

L1: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

L2: https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/FEDERAL/P/NSD1010/2013/order_list

Q2: What are we waiting for

A2: Awaiting scheduling and announcement of next Directions Hearing and trial date for the AU ‘893 and ‘182 patents. VRNG anticipates the Court will set a trial date sometime in 2015.

L2: http://vringo.freeforums.net/thread/1130/key-dates?page=1 (Note: May have to be a member to view)

B1: On June 11, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia in the New South Wales registry, alleging infringement by ZTE of two Australian patents. In March 2015, the Court granted Vringo’s request to join ZTE as a party to the action. We currently anticipate that the Court will set a trial date in 2015.

L1: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm

B2: In Australia, should we be deemed the losing party in any of our applications to the Court or for the entire litigation, we may be held responsible for a substantial percentage of the defendant’s legal fees for the relevant application or for the litigation. These fees may be substantial. In addition, pursuant to negotiations with ZTE’s Australian subsidiary, we placed a written commitment in April 2014 to ensure payment should a liability by Vringo Infrastructure arise as a result of the case filed. The amount of such commitment cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, and we assess the likelihood of such payment as remote.

L2: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 12 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)


ZTE (Brazil – Infrastructure Equipment)

November 18, 2015

Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices, today announced that for the twelfth time, a Brazilian Court has denied ZTE’s request to overturn the preliminary injunction which was granted on April 15, 2014.

On April 15, 2014, the 5th Business Trial Court of the State of Rio de Janeiro granted Vringo’s request for an ex-parte preliminary injunction against ZTE, ordering ZTE to cease commercializing 3G and 4G infrastructure technology in Brazil.

Since that date, ZTE has attempted, unsuccessfully, to have the preliminary injunction overturned twelve times. ZTE has done so by petitioning five separate courts, utilizing a wide variety of procedural mechanisms, and re-litigating the same issues.

In this instance, ZTE, for the first time, had petitioned the Superior Court of Justice, Brazil’s highest court for non-constitutional matters, to overturn an earlier ruling by the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals, which rejected a previous ZTE attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction.

In its ruling, the Superior Court of Justice affirmed the decision of the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals, which held that to delay relief to Vringo would present “effective irreparable harm” to Vringo’s legal rights, and that ZTE, in seeking to overturn the preliminary injunction, had not adequately presented an argument that it does not infringe Vringo’s patent-in-suit.

Following this latest rejection of ZTE’s attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction, ZTE remains enjoined from commercializing 3G and 4G infrastructure technology in Brazil and Vringo remains able to enforce the preliminary injunction.

In addition, according to a report prepared by court-appointed experts following a December 1, 2014 raid of ZTE’s warehouse in Hortolândia, São Paulo, Brazil, ZTE has sold at least 360 components in violation of the preliminary injunction and failed to produce several accounting and tax documents that ZTE had been specifically ordered to produce during the raid.

Link: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

November 12, 2015:

In Brazil, in rejecting ZTE`s latest appeal-its eleventh-to the preliminary injunction in place against it, the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals, in its opinion issued on October 21, 2015, held that while “ZTE used its constitutional right to access the courts to file a specific lawsuit.such behavior constitutes a bad-faith dispute and ZTE has already been warned of such conduct.”

October 22, 2015

Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that, for the eleventh time, a Brazilian court has denied ZTE`s attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction which was granted on April 15, 2014.

On April 15, 2014, the 5th Business Trial Court of the State of Rio de Janeiro granted Vringo`s request for an ex-parte preliminary injunction against ZTE, ordering ZTE to cease commercializing 3G and 4G infrastructure technology in Brazil.

Since that date, ZTE has attempted, unsuccessfully, to have the preliminary injunction overturned eleven times. ZTE has done so by petitioning four separate courts, utilizing a wide variety of procedural mechanisms, and re-litigating the same issues.

To date, the court has rejected each and every one of ZTE`s attempts.

In the latest instance, on June 19, 2015, ZTE filed a second interlocutory appeal to lift the injunction upon the payment of a bond or imposition of a royalty rate. Yesterday, the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals rejected ZTE`s request, holding that the Court had already decided previous ZTE appeals against the granting of the injunction, and that ZTE has already filed a separate lawsuit before the 13th Federal Trial Court of Rio de Janeiro seeking the determination of a royalty rate.

Following this latest rejection of ZTE`s attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction, ZTE remains enjoined from commercializing 3G and 4G infrastructure technology in Brazil and Vringo continues to be able to enforce the preliminary injunction.

In addition, according to a report prepared by court-appointed experts following a December 1, 2014 raid of ZTE`s warehouse in Hortolândia, São Paulo, Brazil, ZTE has sold at least 360 components in violation of the preliminary injunction and failed to produce several accounting and tax documents that ZTE had been specifically ordered to produce during the raid.

June 29th, 2015:

Since April 15, 2014, through a preliminary injunction requested by Vringo, ZTE has been restrained from commercializing 3G and 4G infrastructure technology in Brazil. Since that date, ZTE has unsuccessfully sought to have the injunction overturned more than ten times. On June 24, 2015, the reporting appellate judge denied ZTE`s latest request to overturn the injunction, rejecting a new interlocutory appeal, which requested an ex parte preliminary injunction in order to, upon payment of a bond, lift the original injunction.

In addition, the trial court which issued the original injunction against ZTE ordered both parties to file briefs regarding the report by a court-appointed expert on the raid conducted at ZTE`s Headquarters in São Paulo, which confirmed that ZTE violated the injunction. Vringo filed a brief on June 24, 2015 requesting further enforcement measures to secure ZTE`s compliance with the injunction, and asking the court to order ZTE to pay an accumulated daily fine of R$ 8,080,000-approximately $2.5 million-for ZTE`s violation of the injunction. Vringo expects a decision by the 5th Business Trial Court of Rio de Janeiro shortly.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-provides-litigation-brazil-romania-131301360.html

June 11th, 2015:
Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that two courts in Brazil have denied ZTE`s latest challenges to the injunction, which has prevented it from commercializing 3G, 4G, or LTE infrastructure technology in Brazil since April 15, 2014.

In the first ruling, the Vice-Chief Judge of the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals denied the admissibility of ZTE`s appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, seeking to overrule the appellate decision of March, 23 2015, which maintained the injunction against ZTE and rejected its request to lift the injunction upon the deposit of royalties.

In the second ruling, the 5th Business Court of the State of Rio de Janeiro denied ZTE`s request to revoke the injunction and stay the infringement lawsuit. In its ruling, the Court held that ZTE failed to demonstrate that Vringo`s assertion of its patent rights was “abusive, unlawful, illegal, non-customary, [or] unfair.”

Since May 1, 2014, ZTE has been prohibited from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, installing, testing, or importing any 3G, 4G, or LTE infrastructure equipment in Brazil. The Federal and State Courts of Rio de Janeiro have, ten separate times, denied ZTE`s attempts to revoke the injunction:

  • A motion to reconsider the injunction, submitted prior to ZTE`s answer to the complaint, denied by the 5th Business Court of Rio de Janeiro on May 21, 2014;
  • An interlocutory appeal of the injunction in the infringement lawsuit, denied by the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals on June 11, 2014;
  • An interlocutory appeal, denied by the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals on June 16, 2014;
  • An appeal to the Superior Court of Justice of the interlocutory appeal of the injunction, denied by the Vice-Chief of the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals on August 21, 2014;
  • A brief requesting the stay of the lawsuit in light of ZTE`s lawsuit seeking to invalidate Vringo`s patent-in-suit, denied by the 5th Business Court of Rio de Janeiro on October 2, 2014;
  • A request to revoke the injunction following the deposit of “royalties” in an escrow account, denied by the 5th Business Court of Rio de Janeiro on December 17, 2014;
  • An interlocutory appeal of the decision rejecting the request to revoke the injunction following the deposit of “royalties”, denied by the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals on March 23, 2015;
  • An appeal of the denial of the interlocutory appeal of the decision denying the request to revoke the injunction following the deposit of “royalties, denied by the Vice-Chief of the Rio de Janeiro State Court of Appeals on June 3, 2015;
  • A lawsuit with a request for preliminary injunction before Federal Court seeking the declaration that Vringo cannot exclude others from using the subject matter of the patent-in-suit, denied by the 13th Federal Court on May 12, 2015;
  • An interlocutory appeal with a request for preliminary injunction after the 13th Federal Trial Court rejected their request for an injunction in the abovementioned lawsuit, denied by the Reporting Appellate Judge of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 1, 2015; and
  • A brief requesting the stay of the infringement lawsuit in light of a ZTE lawsuit filed before Federal Court seeking the declaration that Vringo cannot exclude others from using the subject matter of the patent-in-suit, denied by the 5th Business Court of Rio de Janeiro on June 3, 2015.

“ZTE has filed an overwhelming number of requests and appeals, aimed at delaying the proceedings before the courts,” said Otto Licks, Founder and Managing Partner of Licks Attorneys, Vringo`s law firm in Brazil. “This waste of time and resources in litigation causes unnecessary delay and strain on the judicial system, and judges in Brazil are not impressed by ZTE`s tactics,” Mr. Licks continued.

 “ZTE has lost a significant number of the more than 70 filings it has made against Vringo around the world,” said David Cohen, Vringo`s Chief Legal and Intellectual Property Officer. “Courts around the world have taken notice of the fact that ZTE has attempted to abuse procedural rules, and have rejected ZTE`s attempts to avoid substantive judicial decisions in favor of Vringo,” Mr. Cohen continued.

“ZTE continues to value obstructionist tactics over the productive and amicable resolution of its dispute with Vringo,” said Andrew Perlman, Vringo`s Chief Executive Officer. “Instead of entering into good faith licensing negotiations, ZTE continues to employ vexatious tactics around the world, wasting time and money, and choosing petulance over rationality,” Mr. Perlman continued.

May 19th, 2015: ZTE FOUND TO VIOLATE INJUNCTION IN BRAZIL

Court-Appointed Experts Find That ZTE Sold Products In Violation Of Court Order

 NEW YORK – May 19, 2015 – Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that court-appointed experts in Brazil have issued a report stating that ZTE violated a Brazilian court injunction.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zte-found-violate-injunction-brazil-154802894.html

Q1: What is the current status in Brazil of patent BR ‘975

A1: In Brazil, Court-appointed experts are finalizing reports, which Vringo believes will demonstrate ZTE`s flagrant disregard for the Court`s order enjoining ZTE from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, installing, testing, or importing any 3G, 4G, and LTE infrastructure equipment in Brazil.  Vringo expects these reports will be submitted to the Court imminently.

L1: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zte-found-breach-contract-123101918.html

B1: March 23, 2015 – Vringo announced it has received a favorable ruling in Brazil.

On Thursday, March 19, 2015, the Court denied ZTE`s fifth attempt to lift an injunction that has been in place since April 15, 2014.  The Court rejected ZTE`s renewed offer to post a bond in exchange for the lifting of the injunction, holding that such an offer was previously rejected on appeal and stating that ZTE was improperly attempting to revisit the merits of an injunction that had already been confirmed on appeal.

Through the Court`s injunction ZTE is prohibited from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, installing, testing, or importing any 3G, 4G, and LTE infrastructure equipment in Brazil.  The Federal and State Courts of Rio De Janeiro have already denied ZTE`s appeal of this injunction.

Vringo was granted the right, by the Court, to enforce the injunction against ZTE on October 2, 2014.

Vringo recently completed a raid on a ZTE warehouse, as further described below, and Vringo believes that it has found conclusive evidence that ZTE has violated and continues to violate the injunction.  Court-appointed experts are finalizing reports to be submitted to the Court that Vringo believes will demonstrate ZTE`s flagrant disregard for the Court`s order.  Vringo expects that the expert reports will be issued shortly.  Should the Court find that the injunction has been violated, penalties may be assessed against ZTE as well as any other parties doing business with ZTE in violation of the Court`s order.

In addition to Vringo`s enforcement of the injunction, the Court has contacted and notified Brazilian Customs to prevent importation of infringing equipment.  The Court has also notified wireless carriers in Brazil of the injunction, and has requested information to determine the extent of ZTE`s violation of the injunction.

Background on Enforcement Of the Injunction

On December 1, 2014, Vringo accompanied a court officer and court-appointed experts on a raid of a ZTE warehouse in Hortolandia, São Paulo, Brazil.  After reviewing ZTE`s records, the court officer seized ZTE infrastructure equipment and a significant number of documents.  Despite a court order requiring it to do so, ZTE failed to present accounting documents during the raid.  Nevertheless, from the documents that were seized, Vringo and the court officer uncovered evidence that ZTE has sold infringing products in violation of the injunction.

The injunction will remain in place until Vringo`s lawsuit against ZTE for the infringement of Brazilian Patent PI0013975-0 is heard.  The hearing has not yet been scheduled.  ZTE has challenged the validity of the patent-in-suit, which is the Brazilian counterpart of the European Patent that was found valid and infringed by ZTE by the United Kingdom High Court of Justice.  The Brazilian Patent Office, which is also a party to ZTE`s invalidity lawsuit, has issued an opinion supporting the validity of the Brazilian Patent.  A schedule for the invalidity lawsuit has not yet been set.

L: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-announces-favorable-ruling-brazil-130202581.html

Q2: Anything else going on in Brazil

A2: Awaiting scheduling and announcement of trial date re: the PI0013975-0 patent.

Awaiting scheduling and announcement of the trial date re: the Nullity suit filed by ZTE on 7/17/14.

L: http://vringo.freeforums.net/thread/1130/key-dates?page=1 (Note: May have to be a member to view)

Q3: What is the surety issue

A3: In Brazil, as a condition of the relief requested, we deposited R$2,020,000 (approximately $752,000 as of December 31, 2014) as a surety against the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint. Unless ZTE is the prevailing party and proves that actual material damages were suffered while the requested relief was in place, the funds are returnable at the end of the litigation.

L3: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 13 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)

Q4: What is the background in Brazil

A4: On April 14, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit assigned to the 5th Trial Court of Rio de Janeiro State Court in Brazil, alleging infringement of a Brazilian patent related to 3G/4G/LTE infrastructure. This is the Brazilian counterpart to the patent found to be valid as amended and infringed in the UK. On April 15, 2014, the court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction restraining ZTE from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, installing, testing, or importing such infrastructure equipment, subject to a fine. The Company posted a bond of approximately R$ 2,020,000 (approximately $621,000 as of March 31, 2015) with the court on April 17, 2014 as a surety against the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint. ZTE has filed numerous appeals against the injunction since, all of which have been rejected.

 On July 17, 2014, ZTE filed a nullity suit in the Federal district court in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, against both Vringo and the Brazilian patent office, seeking to invalidate Vringo’s Brazilian patent. The Brazilian patent office answered the complaint, supporting the validity of the patent and requesting the dismissal of the complaint. A schedule for the remainder of this matter has not yet been set.

In April 2015, ZTE filed a second suit in the Federal district court in Rio de Janeiro, against Vringo and the Brazilian patent office, seeking to prevent Vringo from enforcing the injunction issued in the state court. A schedule for this matter has not yet been set.

L4: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm


ZTE (China)

November 13, 2015

ZTE Corporation, a major international provider of telecommunications, enterprise and consumer technology solutions for the Mobile Internet, today issued an update on the company’s anti-monopoly court case in China against Vringo Inc. and its subsidiaries.

The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court will hold a private hearing on the merits of the anti-monopoly case on the 7th December 2015, at which all proceedings will be confidential. The hearing was rescheduled from June 2015 following an objection to jurisdiction filed by Vringo. The court made a decision earlier this month at which the objection to jurisdiction was resolved.

As one of the world’s leading technology innovators, ZTE is committed to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) principles in its intellectual property policies. ZTE reserves the right to pursue legal action in the interests of the company and its customers.

ZTE has filed applications for more than 60,000 patents, with over 17,000 granted. ZTE ranked third globally in patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in the latest annual report published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in March. This was the fifth successive year in which ZTE was ranked inside the Global Top-3 by WIPO.

Link: http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?C=0&ID=491845

November 12, 2015

In China, the Patent Re-Examination Board (“PRB”) of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People`s Republic of China has upheld the validity of two of Vringo`s Chinese patents, each for the second time.

On May 30, 2014, ZTE filed a first petition for the re-examination of Vringo`s Chinese Patent ZL97192088.5, which pertains to SMS technology. On December 31, 2014, following an oral hearing, the PRB upheld the validity of all claims of the patent.  On May 11, 2015, ZTE filed a second petition for the re-examination of the same patent.  On November 6, 2015, the PRB-once again-maintained the validity of the patent.

On May 30, 2014, ZTE also filed a first petition for the re-examination of Vringo`s Chinese Patent ZL96190165.9, which has been declared to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute as a standard-essential patent. On February 9, 2015, following an oral hearing, the PRB upheld the validity of all claims of the patent. On July 2, 2015, ZTE filed a second petition for the re-examination of the same patent. On November 10, 2015, the PRB-once again-maintained the validity of the patent.

ZTE has sought to invalidate almost all of Vringo`s Chinese patents, filing petitions for the re-examination of 33 of Vringo`s Chinese patents. The PRB has upheld the validity of 17 of those patents in full, and of 2 in part. This is not ZTE`s first attempt to invalidate one of Vringo`s Chinese patents more than once. ZTE has filed second petitions for the re-examination of 9 of Vringo`s Chinese patents.  Of the 6 of those petitions which have reached a dispositive decision, all 6 were maintained valid by the PRB. In addition, in two cases, ZTE withdrew a petition for re-examination of one of Vringo`s Chinese patents only to re-file it citing substantially the same prior art.

Neither of the two Chinese patents, nor any of their counterparts around the world, have been asserted against ZTE.

“For many of Vringo`s Chinese patents, ZTE has attempted to find a review panel that will provide ZTE with more favorable results,” said David Cohen, Vringo`s Chief Legal and Intellectual Property Officer. “ZTE`s repeated attempts to invalidate patents which the Chinese PRB has already found valid is yet another example of ZTE`s gamesmanship. ZTE would rather litigate than engage in negotiations to license Vringo`s standard essential patent portfolio on FRAND terms,” Mr. Cohen continued.

October 28th, 2015:

In China, the Patent Re-Examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People`s Republic of China today, following an earlier oral hearing, upheld the validity of ZL200580013835.X in response to a re-examination request filed by ZTE. This patent is the Chinese equivalent of IN 243,980, which is currently being asserted against ZTE in India. This was ZTE`s second attempt to invalidate the patent, following ZTE`s withdrawal of its first re-examination request.

ZTE has filed re-examination requests for 33 of Vringo`s Chinese Patents. To date, 18 of those patents have been maintained valid, 2 have been maintained valid-in-part, and 13 have been found invalid, and are pending appeal.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-provides-challenges-validity-vringo-140101080.html

Q1: What is happening with the patent revalidation in China that ZTE requested

A1: ZTE Says China Patent Re-Examination Board Invalidates 13th Vringo (VRNG) Patent

May 13, 2015 10:33 AM

ZTE Corporation noted today that the Patent Re-examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China invalidated a Vringo Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNG) patent on mobile devices technology due to lack of invention. This was the 13th Vringo patent invalidated by the agency in the past 9 months.

The 200580044792.1 patent, related to the transmission and rendering of information to mobile devices, was deemed completely invalid by the Patent Re-examination Board. Since September 2014, the agency had deemed 13 Vringo patents to be completely or partially invalid. The decisions of the Patent Re-examination Board are subject to appeal by Vringo.

ZTE reserves the right to pursue legal action in other jurisdictions against similar intellectual property assets held by Vringo. 200580044792.1 is equivalent to United States patents US20060095515A1 and US8150920B2, as well as European patents EP1810445A1 and EP1810445A4.

“The high percentage of Vringo patents invalidated by the Patent Re-examination Board raises serious concerns on the quality of intellectual property assets held by Vringo,” said Shen Jianfeng, Chief Intellectual Property Officer of ZTE. “We remain committed to licensing intellectual property of proven technological merit based on FRAND principles.”

The decisions in China follow Vringo’s efforts to license a broad patent portfolio to ZTE, including patents that have since then been invalidated by the Patent Re-examination Board, while at the same time relying on the threat of litigation and injunctions to bring pressure to bear on the counter-party. ZTE believes such tactics to be stifling to innovation and anti-competitive.

On June 1, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court will hold a private hearing into ZTE’s anti-monopoly litigation case against Vringo. All materials, submitted evidence and testimonies are considered confidential.

In January, the District Court of Dusseldorf rejected Vringo’s claims against ZTE over patents ‘EP 136’ and ‘EP 941’ that allegedly relate to hotspot functionality in mobile devices and the use of Google Maps respectively. Vringo Germany has filed an appeal against the decisions at the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf. These appeal proceedings are still pending.

In February, ZTE applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine five Vringo patents.

As a globally-leading technology innovator, ZTE respects the intellectual property of other companies. ZTE has filed applications for more than 60,000 patents, with over 17,000 granted. ZTE ranked third globally in patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in the latest annual report published by the World Intellectual Property Organization in March. That was the fifth successive year in which ZTE was ranked inside the Global Top-3 by WIPO.

L1: http://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=10556062

Q2: What is happening with the NDRC

A2: Letter to Judge Kaplan from VRNG on April 22nd, 2015:

Dear Judge Kaplan:

On behalf of Vringo Inc. and Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. (“Vringo”), we write to update the Court about developments in the pending Shenzhen litigation relevant to the Preliminary Injunction motion pending before this Court.

In Vringo’s reply brief in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction (No. 14-cv-4988, Dkt. No. 23), Vringo informed the Court that a hearing in the Shenzhen litigation had been scheduled for August 2014. Vringo subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal of the Shenzhen court’s jurisdiction, which temporarily stayed the litigation. That appeal was ultimately denied. And on April 20, 2015, Vringo received notices from the Shenzhen Court that the parties are to submit all of their evidence at an evidentiary hearing on Friday May 29, and that a substantive hearing will be held on Monday June 1. At the conclusion of this substantive hearing, the Shenzhen Court may decide the entire litigation based on the evidence before it.

Although Vringo has requested confidential treatment with respect to the materials submitted to the Chinese court, the Shenzhen court has not issued any order regarding whether it will keep either the hearings or its ultimate ruling confidential.

L2: http://stocktwits.com/egiscodr (Post dated April 28th, 2015 at 7:05)

Q3: Anything else related to the NDRC

A3: On January 13, 2015, Vringo Infrastructure received a Request for Assistance in Investigation from the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China.

L3: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm


ZTE (France – Infrastructure Equipment: EP ‘119 and ‘212)

November 5, 2015:

Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices, today provided an update on its global enforcement actions against ZTE.

The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris issued its judgment in the patent infringement lawsuit between Vringo`s wholly-owned subsidiary, Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., and ZTE Corporation and its French subsidiary, ZTE France SASU.  The Tribunal found claims 1 to 11 and 13 of European patent 1,221,212 (the “EP 212 Patent”) invalid and claims 1 to 5 and 10 to 15 of European patent 1,186,119 (the “EP 119 Patent”) not implemented in the relevant standard. Vringo filed the lawsuit on April 2, 2013, based on particular information uncovered during a seizure to obtain evidence of infringement, known as a saisie-contrefaçon, which was executed at two of ZTE`s facilities in France. Vringo plans to appeal the Tribunal`s`s judgment; the appeal will be heard de novo.

The EP 119 Patent has previously been found infringed by ZTE in Germany, where Vringo has enforced an injunction against ZTE. That injunction remains in place. Separately, the 119 patent was previously found valid by the European Patent office when validity its validity was challenged by Qualcomm.

“Today, ZTE issued a statement regarding court rulings in France and the Netherlands.
Our global litigation track record against ZTE speaks for itself.  With so few positive rulings in a worldwide campaign, ZTE clearly feels a need to recycle news that Vringo has previously disclosed to its shareholders regarding the Netherlands. We remain confident in our strategy, and the table below demonstrates that we have been unceasingly successful in our litigations against ZTE.  ZTE remains enjoined in three countries on three separate patents and remains an unwilling licensee. Despite various court orders and expert report findings, ZTE continues to practice abusive litigation tactics in courts around the world, including the United States.  It is unrealistic to believe that Vringo will win every ruling or case but rest assured that we expect to execute and continue our favorable overall record,” said David Cohen, Vringo`s Chief Legal and Intellectual Property Officer.

B1: On March 29, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit in France in the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, alleging infringement of the French part of two European patents. Vringo Infrastructure filed the lawsuit based on particular information uncovered during a seizure to obtain evidence of infringement, known as a saisie-contrefaçon, which was executed at two of ZTE’s facilities in France. The oral hearing in relation to these patents happened on April 13th, 2015 before the 3rd division of the 3rd chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (specializing in IP matters).

B2: In France, should we be deemed to be the losing party, it is more likely than not that we will be ordered to pay a contribution to ZTE’s attorney and expert fees. The court in France will make an assessment of winning party’s costs during the course of the proceeding on the merits, and at its discretion order the losing party to pay a portion of those costs, typically between 40 and 60%.

B3:After a certain number of exchanges of briefs (usually two to four exchanges) the judge decides to close the case and gives a deadline for filing further briefs as well as a date for the oral hearing. The oral hearing usually takes place about two years after the filing of the initial writ, except in case of nomination of an expert, which increases the duration of the procedure for approximately one supplemental year.

The oral hearing must be very thoroughly prepared with the barrister. The pleadings of the barristers are based on the argumentation developed in the briefs. However, it happens frequently that the barristers go slightly beyond the short argumentation of the briefs. It is therefore necessary to be prepared to possible slight deviations from the argumentation explained in the briefs of the other party.

The pleadings of each barrister last about one to three hours, the plaintiff speaking first and the defendant in second with a further possibility of answer of the plaintiff’s barrister at the end. Usually, the oral hearing lasts one full afternoon and sometimes in difficult cases two afternoons.

After the pleadings both barristers give to the court (three judges) their dockets which contain by writing the main arguments they have developed during oral pleading. The court gives its decision within one or two to three months from the oral hearing.

LB1:  Link: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 7 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)

LB2: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 13 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)

LB3: http://www.casalonga.com/Patent-infringement-actions-in?lang=en

Q4: What is the background in France

A4: On March 29, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit in France in the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, alleging infringement of the French part of two European patents. Vringo Infrastructure filed the lawsuit based on particular information uncovered during a seizure to obtain evidence of infringement, known as a saisie-contrefaçon, which was executed at two of ZTE’s facilities in France. The oral hearing in relation to liability and injunctive relief for these patents was held on April 13, 2015 before the 3rd division of the 3rd chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (specializing in IP matters). We anticipate that the Court will render a decision in the third quarter of 2015.

L5: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm


ZTE (Germany – Infrastructure & Mobile Devices)

October 28th, 2015:

In Germany, Vringo continues to enforce an injunction against ZTE based on EP 119, which was issued by a German court on December 17, 2013 upon finding that ZTE infringed EP 119. The injunction remains in place following today`s ruling. In addition, on July 23, 2015, the German Patents Court issued a preliminary opinion regarding ZTE`s invalidity arguments with respect to EP 119, holding the preliminary view that EP 119 is valid.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-provides-challenges-validity-vringo-140101080.html

July 6, 2015:

Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that the German Patents Court has issued a ruling on the validity of the German part of European Patent 1,212,919 (the “`919 Patent”), owned by Vringo`s wholly-owned subsidiary Vringo Infrastructure, Inc.

The Court, following a hearing held on March 4, 2015, held that the `919 Patent claims that read on handover between radio network controllers, a key part of 3G infrastructure technology, were held valid as amended.

Vringo`s infringement claims against ZTE on the `919 Patent alleging infringement of ZTE`s 3G and 4G infrastructure equipment are pending before the Düsseldorf Regional Court, where they are scheduled to be heard on February 25, 2016. In Germany, damages are calculable from one month after the publication of the grant of the patent, which, in the case of the `919 Patent, was October 8, 2010.  ZTE entered the European market in 2002 and has had a substantial presence in Germany for many years.

“We are pleased with the claims that were held valid by the German Patents Court and look forward to the hearing on infringement of these claims in the first quarter of next year,” said David Cohen, Vringo`s Chief Legal and Intellectual Property Officer.

The `919 Patent is the German counterpart of the patent previously found by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court in the United Kingdom to be infringed by ZTE and valid as amended. In the UK ZTE has forfeited its right to appeal. The `919 Patent is also the German counterpart of the patent found, prima facie, infringed by ZTE in Brazil, where the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro has issued an ex-parte preliminary injunction against ZTE, which remains in place pending trial on the merits. To date ZTE has attempted to have the injunction in Brazil lifted seven times, all of their attempts have been rejected by numerous courts.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-announces-favorable-ruling-regarding-125901816.html

More:

ZTE lodged invalidations against 4 of Vringo’s patents in Europe

(SI Newswire) (Munich, Germany) – ZTE Corporation’s subsidiary in Germany filed Nullity suits to the Federal Patent Court of Germany requesting for the invalidation of three patents held by Vringo Inc. and its subsidiaries.

The applications by ZTE Deutschland GmBH were based on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive elements. These three patents relate to information collecting in intelligent networks, time difference measurement for positioning in cellular networks, and Push-To-Talk over cellular networks.

For these same reasons, ZTE filed an Opposition before the European Patent Office to invalidate Vringo’s Patent EP1, 842, 386, which relates to data transfers in mobile communications.

In China, the Patent Re-examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office has so far invalidated 13 Vringo patents since September 2014, raising concerns about the quality of the U.S. company’s intellectual property assets. In February, ZTE applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine five Vringo patents.

In January, the District Court of Dusseldorf rejected Vringo’s claims against ZTE over patents ‘EP 136’ and ‘EP 941’ that allegedly relate to hotspot functionality in mobile devices and the use of Google Maps respectively. Vringo Germany has filed an appeal against the decisions at the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf. These appeal proceedings are still pending.

ZTE is committed to defending the company against actions brought by Vringo in Europe, Asia and South America. As a globally-leading technology innovator, ZTE respects the intellectual property of other companies and is willing to negotiate royalty fees with license holders based on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) principles.

ZTE reserves the right to challenge patents whose validity has yet to be determined. The European Commission had previously provided guidance upholding the right of licensees to challenge the validity of patents in court, on the premise that companies and ultimately consumers should not have to pay for patents that are in fact invalid and should never have been granted. The European Commission had also established that potential licensees of standard essential patents are free to challenge the validity of patents, without prejudice to whether they are considered willing licensees.

ZTE has filed applications for more than 60,000 patents, with over 17,000 granted. ZTE ranked third globally in patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in the latest annual report published by the World Intellectual Property Organization in March. For five consecutive years, ZTE has been ranked as one of the Global Top-3 by WIPO.

Link: http://www.streetinsider.com/SI+Newswire/ZTE+lodged+invalidations+against+4+of+Vringos+patents+in+Europe/10595316.html

Q1: Did we lose a case in Germany

A1: In Germany, Vringo unfortunately lost a hearing against ZTE relating to mobile handset technology.  The patents in this case (EP ‘136 – Handsets and ‘941 – Handsets/Tablets), which were found not infringed, are not standard-essential patents and are not related to any of patents being litigated in the UK or for which Vringo has obtained an injunction. We have appealed this ruling in Germany and will update shareholders in the future on the outcome.

L1: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/corp_overview.pl

Q2: Did we win a case in Germany

A2: The ‘119 (Infrastructure) Patent has been held valid and infringed by ZTE in Germany, prima facie.

L2: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

Q3: What about the other patents

A3: Awaiting scheduling and announcement of trial dates for the nullity (validity) hearings for the EP ‘119, ‘136, and ‘941 patents. Per the VRNG Q2 2014 10Q, these are not expected to take place prior to Q3 of 2015.

L: http://vringo.freeforums.net/thread/1130/key-dates?page=1 (Note: May have to be a member to view)

Q4: Any injunctions in Germany

A4: In Germany, Vringo obtained a permanent injunction against ZTE, prohibiting ZTE from selling or importing 3G UMTS SDR Base Stations

L4: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

Q5: What kind of expenses are we still looking at in Germany

A5: In Germany, the amount of fees payable by a losing party is determined based on certain possible statutory levels of “value in dispute.” The value in dispute is only very loosely correlated to the actual value of any potential final settlement or license. Under the current statute, our risk is capped at approximately $1,000,000 in legal fees were the court to determine that the value in dispute is at the highest tier under law. In Germany, should the court order an injunction, for it to be enforced, we will have to pay a security based on the relevant statutory rate. In our litigations against ZTE and ASUS the statutory rate is approximately $1,400,000 for each patent asserted. We have already deposited a bond of €1,000,000 on May 5, 2014 (approximately $1,216,000 as of December 31, 2014) in one of our cases. The statutory rate is only loosely correlated to any actual harm the defendant may suffer from an injunction. The district court judge is entitled to increase the amount of the security. Generally, the courts take the value in dispute as the amount payable as security. Should the injunction be successfully overturned on appeal, we may be obligated to compensate the defendant for any damages allegedly suffered as a result of the enforcement of the injunction, which would be ascertained through separate damages proceedings. Should the judgment which granted the injunction be affirmed on appeal, however, the amount paid as security would be returnable to us in full.

L5: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 12 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)

Q6: What is the latest news for EP ‘919 (Infrastructure) in Germany

A6: The case was refilled in Dusseldorf. Hearing scheduled for February 25th, 2016

L6: http://www.vringoip.com/documents/FG/vringo/docs/166402_VRNG_Investor_Presentation_2015Q2_FINAL.pdf (page 12)

Q7: What is the background in Germany

A7: On November 15, 2012, Vringo Germany filed a suit in the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany, alleging infringement of a European patent. The litigation was expanded to include a second European patent on February 21, 2013. On November 4, 2013, Vringo Germany filed a further brief with respect to the proceedings of the first European patent suit, asserting infringement by ZTE eNode B infrastructure equipment used in 4G networks. Vringo Germany re-filed the first European patent case in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf on December 5, 2014.

On December 17, 2013, the Court issued its judgment in the second European patent case, finding that ZTE infringed that patent and ordering an accounting and an injunction upon payment of the appropriate bonds. On February 19, 2014, Vringo Germany filed suit in the Mannheim Regional Court seeking enforcement of the accounting ordered and a further order that non-compliance be subject to civil and criminal penalties. On May 5, 2014, we paid a bond of €1,000,000 (approximately $1,085,000 as of March 31, 2015) to the Court in order to enforce the injunction against ZTE. On December 27, 2013, ZTE filed a notice of appeal of the Mannheim Regional Court’s judgment in the second European patent case, and on January 24, 2014, ZTE filed an emergency motion with the Court of Appeals seeking a stay of the judge’s order pending appeal. On February 24, 2014, ZTE’s motion was denied. A hearing in the appeal is scheduled for the third quarter of 2015.

 On September 13, 2013 and January 28, 2014, Vringo Germany filed two suits in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, alleging infringement of two additional European patents. Those cases were heard by the Court on November 27, 2014. On January 22, 2015, the Court issued its judgment, finding that ZTE does not infringe either patent. On February 17, 2015, Vringo filed notices of appeal for each patent. The appeal process is anticipated to take at least one year.

ZTE filed nullity suits with respect to the first and second European patents in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany during the second and fourth quarters, respectively, of 2013. Trial in the nullity suit with respect to the first European patent took place on March 4, 2015. The Court indicated that it will present its findings in a written decision, which is likely to be released in the second quarter of 2015. Trial in the nullity suit with respect to the second European patent has been scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2015.

ZTE filed a nullity suit with respect to the third European patent in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany, in the fourth quarter of 2013. A schedule has not yet been set and the trial is not anticipated before the third quarter of 2015. In addition, ZTE filed a nullity suit with respect to the fourth European patent in the Federal Patents Court in Munich, Germany in the second quarter of 2014. A schedule has not yet been set and the trial is not anticipated before the third quarter of 2015.

L7: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm


ZTE (India – Infrastructure & Mobile Devices)

November 12, 2015:

In India, the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi is expected to rule before the end of 2015 on Vringo`s motion to hold ZTE in contempt of Court for ZTE`s alleged failure to produce a complete accounting of all potentially infringing devices as ordered by the Court.

Q: What are we waiting for

A: Awaiting scheduling and announcement of trial date re: the IN’980 (Handsets/Infrastructure) and IN’572 (Infrastructure) patents. Vringo filed a “contempt motion” against ZTE for failing to report all prior activities.

L: http://vringo.freeforums.net/thread/1130/key-dates?page=1 (Note: May have to be a member to view)

http://www.vringoip.com/documents/FG/vringo/docs/166402_VRNG_Investor_Presentation_2015Q2_FINAL.pdf

B1: On November 7, 2013, we and our subsidiary, Vringo Infrastructure, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, India, alleging infringement of an Indian patent related to CDMA. On November 8, 2013, the Court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction and appointed commissioners to inspect ZTE’s facilities and collect evidence. ZTE appealed the preliminary injunction and, on December 12, 2013, the Court instituted an interim arrangement. On February 3, 2014, we filed a motion for contempt for ZTE’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, and requested that the Court order ZTE to pay an increased bond. A ruling on this motion is pending.

B2: On January 31, 2014, we and our subsidiary, Vringo Infrastructure, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, alleging infringement of a second Indian patent related to GSM Infrastructure. The Court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction and appointed commissioners to inspect ZTE’s facilities and collect evidence. ZTE appealed the preliminary injunction and, on August 13, 2014, the Court instituted an interim arrangement.

B3: On August 30, 2014, we filed a motion for contempt for ZTE’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, and requested that the Court order ZTE to pay an increased bond. A ruling on this motion is pending.

L: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm


ZTE (Malaysia – Infrastructure Equipment)

Q: What is happening in Malaysia

A: The MY ‘706 Patent remains in suit in Malaysia, where it is currently scheduled to be heard by the court on October 26, 2015.

L: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

B: On June 23, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZTE in the High Court of Malaysia at Kuala Lumpur.

L: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 8 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)


ZTE (Netherlands – Infrastructure Equipment)

October 28th, 2015:

In the Netherlands, today, the District Court of the Hague, the Netherlands has found the Dutch part of European Patent 1,186,119 (“EP 119”) invalid. Vringo plans to appeal today`s ruling.

On October 23, 2014, ZTE`s Dutch subsidiary filed a lawsuit asking the Court to declare the Dutch part of EP 119 invalid. Today, following a hearing on September 4, 2015, the Court granted ZTE`s request, finding the Dutch part of EP 119 invalid.  This decision deviates from an earlier decision rendered by the President of the same Court, on October 24, 2014, rejecting ZTE`s invalidity arguments and affirming the seizure of ZTE`s products detained by Dutch customs under the Anti Piracy Regulation.

Previously, the validity of EP 119 was confirmed by both the Opposition Division and the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office, following opposition proceedings initiated by Qualcomm.

Today`s decision in the Netherlands will be suspended pending Vringo`s appeal.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-provides-challenges-validity-vringo-140101080.html

Q1: Did we win a case in the Netherlands

A1: The ‘119 Patent has been held valid and infringed by ZTE in the Netherlands

L1: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

B1: On May 28, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure commenced legal proceedings, pursuant to European Anti-Piracy Regulations, Number 1383/2003, Article 11 against ZTE in the District Court of The Hague. ZTE has filed an invalidity lawsuit for the patent-in-suit. On August 19, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed another suit at the District Court of The Hague, which subsumed the May 18, 2014 lawsuit. A schedule has not yet been set in this matter. On June 4, 2014, ZTE filed suit in the District Court of Rotterdam against Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure for the alleged wrongful detention of goods under the relevant anti-piracy regulations. A schedule has not yet been set in this matter. On July 24, 2014, ZTE filed a request with the District Court of The Hague to seek the release of ZTE UMTS products being held by Dutch customs officials and to order Vringo to ask the Dutch customs authorities to stop their actions against ZTE’s products based on the Anti-Piracy Regulations of the European Union. On October 24, 2014, the President of the Court denied ZTE’s requests, and upheld the detention of ZTE’s goods, finding, prima facie, that ZTE has infringed one of Vringo’s European patents, upholding the validity of that patent, and rejecting ZTE’s argument that Vringo has violated European competition law by enforcing that patent. ZTE was also ordered to pay Vringo’s legal costs of approximately $250,000. ZTE may choose to appeal this decision. On October 23, 2014, ZTE filed suit in the District Court of The Hague seeking the invalidity of Vringo’s European Patent that is the subject of the other proceedings taking place in the same Court. A hearing in this matter has not yet been scheduled.

L1: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 9 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)

Netherlands Judgment: http://www.vringoip.com/documents/FG/vringo/ip/267659_Netherlands_Judgment_English_Translation.pdf

Q2: What is the background in the Netherlands

A2: On May 28, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure commenced legal proceedings, pursuant to European Anti-Piracy Regulations, Number 1383/2003, Article 11 against ZTE in the District Court of The Hague. ZTE has filed an invalidity lawsuit for the patent-in-suit. On August 19, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed another suit at the District Court of The Hague, which subsumed the May 18, 2014 lawsuit. A schedule has not yet been set in this matter.

On June 4, 2014, ZTE filed suit in the District Court of Rotterdam against Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure for the alleged wrongful detention of goods under the relevant anti-piracy regulations. A schedule has not yet been set in this matter.

On July 24, 2014, ZTE filed a request with the District Court of The Hague to seek the release of ZTE UMTS products being held by Dutch customs officials and to order Vringo to ask the Dutch customs authorities to stop their actions against ZTE’s products based on the Anti-Piracy Regulations of the European Union. On October 24, 2014, the President of the Court denied ZTE’s requests, and upheld the detention of ZTE’s goods, finding, prima facie, that ZTE has infringed one of Vringo’s European patents, upholding the validity of that patent, and rejecting ZTE’s argument that Vringo has violated European competition law by enforcing that patent. ZTE was also ordered to pay Vringo’s legal costs of approximately $250,000. ZTE may choose to appeal this decision.

 On October 23, 2014, ZTE filed suit in the District Court of The Hague seeking the invalidity of Vringo’s European Patent that is the subject of the other proceedings taking place in the same Court. A hearing in this matter has not yet been scheduled.

L2: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm


ZTE (Romania – Infrastructure & Mobile Devices)

November 12, 2015:

In Romania, on November 11, 2015, the Bucharest First District Court rejected ZTE Romania`s challenge to the enforcement of the preliminary injunction that has been in place against ZTE Romania since June 30, 2014.  ZTE Romania has previously lost all rights to appeal the preliminary injunction itself.  This marks the thirteenth time that a Romanian court has stricken down a challenge by ZTE Romania to the preliminary injunction or to the enforcement thereof.

In Romania, ZTE Romania has exhausted thirteen challenges to the preliminary injunction or to the enforcement thereof in place against it. In one of ZTE Romania`s latest challenges, the Bucharest Court of Appeal held that ZTE Romania`s motion asking the Court to set aside the preliminary injunction in light of the European Court of Justice Huawei v. ZTE decision, outlining the factors to consider in determining whether the holder of a standard-essential patent abuses its dominant position in seeking injunctive relief against an alleged infringer, was ungrounded, and dismissed it with no further chance of appeal.

October 29, 2015:

Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property as well as the commercialization and distribution of wire-free charging and rugged computing devices, today announced that a Romanian appellate court has denied ZTE Romania`s twelfth attempt to overturn or suspend Vringo`s preliminary injunction against ZTE Romania.

On August 6, 2015, ZTE Romania filed a motion seeking for the Bucharest Tribunal, 5th Civil Section to set aside Vringo`s preliminary injunction in light of the July 16, 2015 European Court of Justice ruling in Huawei v. ZTE.  The Huawei v. ZTE case outlined the factors to consider in determining whether the holder of a standard-essential patent abuses its dominant position in seeking injunctive relief against an alleged infringer. On August 31, 2015, the Bucharest Tribunal rejected all of ZTE Romania`s arguments and denied ZTE Romania`s request as ungrounded. ZTE Romania appealed the Bucharest Tribunal`s decision and, yesterday, the Bucharest Court of Appeal denied ZTE Romania`s appeal as ungrounded, with no further chance of appeal.

“ZTE Romania has exhausted all reasonable bases for challenging the preliminary injunction,” said Dragos Vilau, of Vilau Associates, Vringo`s Romanian counsel. “Romanian courts have rejected each of ZTE Romania`s attempts to circumvent the court order against it which has been in place for well over one year and have once again confirmed that the Romanian legal system provides effective tools for patent holders in protecting and enforcing their rights” Mr. Vilau continued.

On June 30, 2014, the Bucharest Tribunal granted Vringo`s request for an ex-parte preliminary injunction against ZTE Romania and others, ordering ZTE Romania to cease any importation, exportation, introduction on the market, offer for sale, storage, sale, trade, distribution, promotion, or any other business activity regarding allegedly infringing equipment.

Since then, ZTE Romania has attempted, unsuccessfully, to have the preliminary injunction overturned or suspended twelve separate times. ZTE Romania has done so by petitioning four separate courts, utilizing-and exhausting-a wide variety of procedural mechanisms, and re-litigating the same issues.

In each instance, the relevant court has rejected ZTE Romania`s attempt.

“ZTE`s gamesmanship in litigations throughout the world highlights its refusal to engage in negotiations to license Vringo`s standard essential patent portfolio on FRAND terms,” said David Cohen, Vringo`s Chief Legal and Intellectual Property Officer. “Judges in Romania, Brazil, the United States, and other countries continue to take notice of ZTE`s bad faith litigation tactics and failure to negotiate a FRAND license with Vringo,” Mr. Cohen said.  “Further, yesterday`s ruling by the Bucharest Court of Appeal highlights the fact that Vringo continues to comply with international standards on the licensing of standard-essential patents, as most recently outlined by the European Court of Justice in its Huawei v. ZTE decision,” Mr. Cohen continued.

Vringo`s lawsuit seeking to recover its attorneys` fees for ZTE Romania`s failed attempts to overturn the preliminary injunction remains pending.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romanian-court-upholds-preliminary-injunction-124601546.html

September 22, 2015:  Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that, for the eleventh time, a Romanian court has denied ZTE Romania`s attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction which, since June 30, 2014, has restrained it from commercializing any 4G LTE mobile phone or infrastructure equipment manufactured by ZTE Corporation which incorporates 4G LTE technology.

On June 30, 2014, the Bucharest Tribunal granted Vringo`s request for an ex-parte preliminary injunction against ZTE Romania, ordering ZTE Romania to cease any importation, exportation, introduction on the market, offer for sale, storage, sale, trade, distribution, promotion, or any other business activity regarding allegedly infringing equipment.

Since that date, ZTE Romania has attempted, unsuccessfully, to have the preliminary injunction overturned eleven separate times. ZTE Romania has done so by petitioning four separate courts, utilizing a wide variety of procedural mechanisms, and re-litigating the same issues.

In each instance, the relevant court has summarily rejected ZTE Romania`s attempt.

In the latest instance, on March 3, 2015, ZTE Romania filed a motion to cancel the enforcement of the preliminary injunction, and also asked for the Court to suspend the enforcement of the preliminary injunction pending the Court`s decision on ZTE Romania`s motion. On September 15, 2015, the Court rejected ZTE Romania`s request to suspend the enforcement of the preliminary injunction as ungrounded.

Following this latest rejection of ZTE Romania`s attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction, ZTE Romania remains enjoined from commercializing any 4G LTE mobile phones or infrastructure equipment manufactured by ZTE Corporation which incorporates 4G LTE technology, and Vringo continues to be able to enforce the preliminary injunction.

Link:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romanian-court-upholds-injunction-against-130202404.html

NOTE: ZTE filed an appeal on this case on Sept 22nd. The next scheduled court date for this case is Oct 6th.

September 2, 2015

– Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that, on August 31, 2015, the Bucharest Tribunal denied ZTE Romania`s latest attempt to overturn Vringo`s preliminary injunction against ZTE Romania.

Since June 30, 2014, Vringo`s preliminary injunction has restrained ZTE Romania from commercializing any 4G LTE mobile phone or infrastructure equipment manufactured by ZTE Corporation which incorporates 4G LTE technology.

On August 6, 2015, ZTE Romania filed a new motion, asking the court to revoke the preliminary injunction, and, as a subsequent request, to replace the preliminary injunction with a bond to be paid by ZTE Romania. ZTE Romania argued that (1) the preliminary injunction prevents ZTE Romania from honoring its binding contractual obligations, thereby triggering substantial damages, and (2) Vringo has not complied with the requirements set forth by the European Court of Justice in its Huawei v. ZTE decision, which was rendered on July 16, 2015.

(VRNG24) Link to Huawei v. ZTE decision info: www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/16/huawei-tech-zte-patent-court-idUSL2N0ZW13W20150716

On August 31, 2015, the Bucharest Tribunal rejected all of ZTE Romania`s arguments and denied ZTE Romania`s request as ungrounded. This was ZTE Romania`s ninth attempt to overturn and/or suspend the enforcement of the preliminary injunction since the preliminary injunction was granted on June 30, 2014.

Following this latest rejection of ZTE Romania`s attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction, ZTE Romania remains enjoined from commercializing any 4G LTE mobile phone or infrastructure equipment manufactured by ZTE Corporation which incorporates 4G LTE technology.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romanian-court-upholds-injunction-against-132202710.html

www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/16/huawei-tech-zte-patent-court-idUSL2N0ZW13W20150716

July 13, 2015:

Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that on July 10, 2015, the Bucharest Court of Appeal denied ZTE Romania`s latest attempt to overturn Vringo`s preliminary injunction against ZTE Romania.

Since July 30, 2014, Vringo`s preliminary injunction has restrained ZTE Romania from commercializing any 4G LTE mobile phone or infrastructure equipment manufactured by ZTE Corporation which incorporates 4G LTE technology.

In early 2015, ZTE Romania sent a proposed license to Vringo.  Since then, ZTE Romania has sought to force Vringo to accept the license as-is.  Unlike Vringo, ZTE Romania has been unwilling to negotiate the terms of the license.  Unable to force Vringo to accept its license, ZTE Romania then filed an action against Vringo asking the Bucharest Tribunal, 3rd Civil Division to order Vringo to allow ZTE Romania to commercialize any 4G LTE mobile phone or infrastructure equipment manufactured by ZTE Corporation which incorporates 4G LTE technology.  The Bucharest Tribunal denied ZTE Romania`s request and ZTE Romania subsequently appealed to the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

On appeal, ZTE argued that (1) Vringo acted in bad faith with regard to the parties` licensing discussions, (2) the preliminary injunction results in the inability for ZTE Romania to perform its obligations under its agreement with Telekom Romania, part of a global agreement between Deutsche Telekom AG and ZTE Corporation, as a result of ZTE Romania`s inability to deliver equipment and related services necessary for the upgrade/replacement of the existing 2G and 3G network of Telekom Romania and the set-up of a 4G LTE network, with the final objective of delivery of a fully operational 2G, 3G and 4G LTE network, and (3) the imminent damage caused to ZTE Romania as a result of the injunction was over €40 million and that such damages, together with ZTE Romania`s inability to carry out its activities in Romania, will result in ZTE Romania`s elimination from the Romanian market.

After considering the merits of ZTE Romania`s arguments, including the parties` licensing discussions, the Bucharest Court of Appeal denied ZTE Romania`s appeal as ungrounded. Following this latest rejection of ZTE Romania`s attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction, ZTE Romania remains enjoined from commercializing any 4G LTE mobile phone or infrastructure equipment manufactured by ZTE Corporation which incorporates 4G LTE technology.

In addition, based on documents obtained by Vringo, Vringo is investigating whether ZTE Romania and its retailers have violated the preliminary injunction. Vringo is currently assessing the legal remedies available to cure any violation.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romanian-court-upholds-injunction-against-130201911.html

June 29, 2015:

Since June 30, 2014, through a preliminary injunction requested by Vringo, ZTE Romania has been restrained from commercializing any 4G/LTE mobile phone or infrastructure equipment manufactured by ZTE Corporation which incorporates 4G/LTE technology. Since that date, ZTE Romania has unsuccessfully sought to have the injunction overturned seven times. On June 19, 2015, ZTE Romania`s latest attempt, a motion to cancel the January 8, 2015 decision which confirmed the preliminary injunction granted to Vringo against ZTE Romania and others, alleging that the Court made a material error when issuing that decision, was denied by the Bucharest Court of Appeal.

In addition, based on documents recently obtained by Vringo, Vringo is currently investigating whether ZTE Romania and its retailers have breached the preliminary injunction. Vringo is currently assessing the legal remedies available to cure any violation.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-provides-litigation-brazil-romania-131301360.html

 

June 10, 2015:

Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that the Bucharest Court of Appeal in Romania has denied ZTE Romania’s latest attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction, granted to Vringo Infrastructure, Inc.

Since June 30, 2014, the injunction has restrained ZTE Romania, among others, from commercializing any 4G/LTE mobile phone or infrastructure equipment manufactured by ZTE Corporation which incorporates 4G/LTE technology. ZTE Romania has subsequently attempted to have the preliminary injunction overturned or suspended five times, in three separate Romanian Courts. Despite ZTE Romania’s repeated attempts to litigate the same issue in different venues, each court, in each instance, has rejected ZTE Romania’s challenge:

  • An appeal of the preliminary injunction, denied by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on January 8, 2015;
  • An attempt to force Vringo to pay a €40 million bond (an amount which ZTE Romania claimed was a more accurate reflection of the damages that ZTE claimed to be suffering in Romania), denied by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on February 4, 2015;
  • An attempt to block Vringo from continuing to enforce the preliminary injunction by asking a United States District Court to enjoin Vringo from enforcing any injunction against ZTE around the world, denied by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on February 10, 2015;
  • An attempt to suspend the enforcement of the preliminary injunction, denied by the 1st district Court of Bucharest on March 10, 2015;
  • An attempted preliminary injunction against Vringo, which would have allowed ZTE Romania to temporarily resume the commercialization of 4G LTE mobile phones and infrastructure equipment in Romania, which would effectively sidestep the preliminary injunction granted against ZTE, denied by the Bucharest Tribunal on May 7, 2015;
  • ZTE Romania’s latest challenge, arguing that the preliminary injunction should be lifted based on allegedly new evidence, denied by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on June 4, 2015.

“The latest ruling of the Bucharest Court of Appeal is a simple but clear answer to ZTE Romania’s numerous yet unsuccessful attempts to lift the preliminary injunction. While in other instances the Romanian Courts found ZTE Romania’s motions as ungrounded, the Court declared ZTE Romania’s most recent motion as inadmissible, thus sending a strong message about the rule of law and protection of rights conferred by a European patent in Romania” said Dragos M. Vilau, managing partner of Vilau Associates, the law firm representing Vringo in Romania.

“ZTE has lost a significant number of the more than 70 filings it has made against Vringo around the world,” said David Cohen, Vringo’s Chief Legal and Intellectual Property Officer. “Courts around the world have taken notice of the fact that ZTE has attempted to abuse procedural rules, and have rejected ZTE’s attempts to avoid substantive judicial decisions in favor of Vringo,” Mr. Cohen continued.

“ZTE continues to value obstructionist tactics over the productive and amicable resolution of its dispute with Vringo,” said Andrew Perlman, Vringo’s Chief Executive Officer. “Instead of entering into good faith licensing negotiations, ZTE continues to employ vexatious tactics around the world, wasting time and money, and choosing petulance over rationality,” Mr. Perlman continued.

Link: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

Q1: What is the latest on the injunction in Romania (EP ‘029 patent)

A1: February 12, 2015 – Vringo announced that it has paid the bond ordered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in Romania to ensure the continued enforcement of the injunction granted by the Bucharest Tribunal against ZTE. The case number for the injunction is 11790/3/2015. The case number for the infringement is 21326/3/2014.

L1: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-pays-bond-continue-enforcement-135701283.html

B1: On June 30, 2014, the Bucharest Tribunal granted an injunction against ZTE, prohibiting ZTE and its distributors from importing, exporting, introducing on the market, offering for sale, storing, selling, distributing, promoting, and/or conducting any other trading activity with respect to any 4G/LTE mobile phone produced by ZTE and any infrastructure equipment produced by ZTE which incorporates 4G/LTE technology. ZTE appealed the injunction on September 16, 2014.  On January 8, 2015, the Court of Appeal rejected ZTE`s appeal seeking cancellation of the injunction.  The Court of Appeal reinstated the injunction with immediate effect and ordered that Vringo pay a bond of €240,000, at a future date, to ensure the continued enforcement of the injunction.

 ZTE petitioned the Court to modify the amount of the bond to €40 million, an amount that it claimed correlated with a more accurate reflection of the damages that ZTE claims to be currently suffering in Romania.  On February 4, 2015, the Court denied ZTE`s request.

On February 5, 2015, ZTE filed an application with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which would have prevented Vringo from paying the bond to continue enforcing the injunction in Romania.  On February 6, 2015, the Delaware Court granted ZTE`s request. On February 9, 2015, Vringo filed a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.  On February 10, 2015, the Delaware Court granted Vringo`s request, dissolving the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and ordering the case consolidated with Vringo`s lawsuit against ZTE currently pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Immediately following the Delaware Court`s ruling dissolving the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Vringo, Vringo paid the bond in Romania to continue enforcement of the injunction against ZTE in Romania.  Vringo has previously provided notice of the Bucharest Tribunal`s injunction to vendors of ZTE handsets and infrastructure equipment in Romania.  Vringo will continue to take all necessary steps to enforce the injunction and confirm ZTE`s compliance therewith.

On the same day as ZTE filed the application with the Delaware Court, ZTE also filed inter partes review (IPR) requests for five of Vringo`s United States patents. The requests, filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, will remain pending until the PTAB makes a preliminary decision on whether to grant the requests and thus review the patents.  While these patents have counterparts that Vringo and ZTE are litigating in other countries, none of these United States patents are currently asserted in litigation in the United States

Q2: What is the background in Romania

A2: On June 23, 2014, Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZTE in the Bucharest Tribunal Civil Section. On July 1, 2014, the court granted an ex-parte preliminary injunction, ordering ZTE to cease any importation, exportation, introduction on the market, offer for sale, storage, sale, trade, distribution, promotion, or any other business activity regarding the infringing product. ZTE appealed the injunction and, on October 10, 2014, the Bucharest Court of Appeal suspended enforcement of the injunction in light of ZTE’s allegations that it was immediately subject to approximately €31,500,000 in contract losses, pending the outcome of the appeal. On January 8, 2015, the Court rejected ZTE’s appeal, and reinstated the injunction with immediate effect. The Court ordered Vringo to pay a bond of approximately €243,000 in order to continue to enforce the injunction. On February 4, 2015, the Court rejected ZTE’s request for the Court to order Vringo to pay an increased bond of €40,000,000, in a final decision that may not be appealed. Vringo paid the €243,000 bond on February 11, 2015 (approximately $264,000 as of March 31, 2015).

L2: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm

MISC:  The official court site in Romania (Link 1) shows some type of “final or ultimate modification” of the ZTE and VRNG court case (EP ‘029) happening on April 28th, 2015. Which is the same day that the UK settlement happened. Could they be related? Also of interest, there is a court date scheduled in Romania for May 5th, 2015 that has something to do with the funding of the injunction (Link 3). Not sure what that is about, but possibly settlement related? Also, why did the PR (link 2) put out by Vringo on the 30th of April slam ZTE in both the UK and Romania, but fail to mention any change in status of either case on the 28th of April?

Link1: http://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=300000000591270&id_inst=2

Link2: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-comments-ztes-actions-china-132202723.html

Link3: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ro&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fportal.just.ro%2F3%2FSitePages%2FDosar.aspx%3Fid_dosar%3D300000000635525%26id_inst%3D3&edit-text=


ZTE (Spain – Infrastructure Equipment)

Q: What are we waiting for

A: Awaiting scheduling and announcement of trial date for the EP ‘119 patent. Request for further discovery has been granted.

L: http://vringo.freeforums.net/thread/1130/key-dates?page=1 (Note: May have to be a member to view)

http://www.vringoip.com/documents/FG/vringo/docs/166402_VRNG_Investor_Presentation_2015Q2_FINAL.pdf page 12

B1: On September 6, 2013, Vringo Infrastructure filed a preliminary inquiry order against ZTE in the Commercial Court of Madrid, Spain, requiring ZTE to provide discovery relating to alleged infringement of a patent which is the Spanish counter-part of the second European patent filed in Germany. In light of ZTE’s non-responsiveness to the order, on March 24, 2014 the Court granted our request to seek discovery of four of ZTE’s Spanish customers. We have received responses from all four customers. On July 31, 2014, ZTE filed a nullity suit in the Commercial Court of Madrid seeking to invalidate two of the Spanish counter-parts of Vringo’s European patents, including the patent found valid as amended and infringed in the United Kingdom. This is all in regards to ZXSDR Base Stations, which Vringo alleges were introduced and distributed in Spain during the last five years.

L1a: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 8 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)

L1b: http://www.vringoip.com/documents/FG/vringo/ip/93110_9_17__Vringo_Infrastructure_vs._ZTE_Spain_.pdf

L1c: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm

B2: In Spain, should we be deemed to be the losing party to the nullity suit or our counterclaims against ZTE, it is more likely than not that we will be ordered to pay a contribution to ZTE’s attorney and expert fees. The same would apply for our claims against Asus. The court in Spain will make an assessment of winning party’s costs during the course of the proceeding on the merits, and at its discretion order the losing party to pay a portion of those costs. We estimate the maximum exposure related to this suit to be approximately €90,000 with respect to ZTE and approximately €60,000 with respect to Asus.

L2: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/sec_filings.pl (Page 13 of the 10-K filed on March 16th, 2015)


ZTE (United Kingdom – Infrastructure & Mobile Devices w/Judge Birss: EP ‘919)

June 20th, 2015: Approved Judgment in the UK from Judge Birss dated June 8th, 2015 on the ‘919 patent. Link below:
Also, a 26 page “Proceedings” document from the UK. Link below:

Q1: Did we win a case in the UK

A1: In the United Kingdom, the court found that ZTE infringed a valid Vringo standard-essential telecommunications patent.  This is one of the only telecommunications infrastructure standard-essential patents that has been found valid and infringed in the history of UK patent litigation.

L1a: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/corp_overview.pl

L1b: http://www.vringoip.com/documents/FG/vringo/ip/328701_UK_Ruling_January_30_2015.pdf (Judge Birss Ruling)

Q2: What is happening with the Statement of Case

A2: In the United Kingdom, on March 2, 2015, Vringo filed its Statement of Case in Relation to the Relief Trial in its case against ZTE for infringement of the UK part of European Patent 1,212,919. The Statement of Case sets out terms for a FRAND license in the context of appropriate relief being determined for the patent found infringed and valid (which finding has not been and cannot any longer be appealed by ZTE), should ZTE request such a license.   If ZTE does not request a license or rejects the terms proposed by Vringo or rejects any alternative terms that the Court orders, Vringo requests that ZTE be permanently enjoined. Vringo’s Statement of Case is available on Vringo’s website, http://www.vringo.com.

L2a: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

L2b (Statement of Case): http://www.vringoip.com/documents/FG/vringo/ip/338512_UK_Remedy_Pleading_-_Service_Copy_January_27_2015.pdf

Q3: What is going on with the Remedy case

A3: In the United Kingdom, Vringo looks forward to the remedy phase of its lawsuit against ZTE for infringement of the UK part of European Patent 1,212,919 (the “‘919 Patent”), which the UK High Court found valid as amended and infringed by ZTE on November 28, 2014.

L3: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

Q4: Did Vringo withdraw any patent infringement lawsuits in the UK

A4: Because ZTE has represented that it only intends to sell equipment in the United Kingdom that is not fully compliant with ETSI standards and, according to ZTE, ZTE therefore will not infringe the claims-in-suit in the UK in the future; in order to streamline costs and process; and to expedite the further phases of its litigation in the United Kingdom,  Vringo has withdrawn its infringement claims against ZTE on the UK parts of European Patents 1,808,029 (the “‘029 Patent”), 1,221,212 (the “‘212 Patent”), and 1,186,119 (the “‘119 Patent”). Vringo’s claim against ZTE for infringement of the UK part of European Patent 1,330,933 remains pending, and is currently scheduled to be heard by the Court in a trial starting on June 8, 2015.

L4: http://www.vringoip.com/cgi-bin/news.pl

Q5: What is the background on everything in the UK

A5: On October 5, 2012, Vringo Infrastructure filed a suit in the UK High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, alleging infringement of three European patents. Subsequently, ZTE responded to the complaint with a counterclaim for invalidity of the patents-in-suit. Vringo Infrastructure filed a second UK suit on December 3, 2012, alleging infringement of three additional European patents.

In March 2014, Vringo Infrastructure withdrew its claim to one of the patents included in the first suit, and ZTE withdrew its invalidity counterclaim. Another patent included in the first suit was heard in a trial that commenced on October 28, 2014.

On November 28, 2014, the Court found the patent valid as amended and infringed by ZTE. Following the Court’s ruling, ZTE applied to introduce new prior art and re-argue the validity of the patent; the application was rejected on January 30, 2015. There was no appeal by ZTE of the substantive decision and therefore the decision is final. The parties will submit pleadings on remedies over the next several months. A hearing to determine the scope, timing and course of the remedies phase of the litigation is scheduled for June 2015.

On February 17, 2015, Vringo withdrew its infringement claims against ZTE on three of the four remaining European Patents in suit in the second litigation in the UK. ZTE subsequently withdrew its invalidity counterclaims in respect of these three patents.

On April 10, 2015, Vringo and ZTE reached an agreement in relation to the remaining European Patent in issue (EP (UK) 1 330 933) in the second patent case in the UK in which the parties will withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims.

L5: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm


ZTE (US / SDNY w/Judge Kaplan)

Here are most of the Documents:

SDNY Doc 304 18Dec2015  (Litigation officially over; 21.5mil in the bank)

SDNY Doc 303 18Dec2015  (Doc 299 endorsed by Kaplan)

SDNY Doc 302 7Dec2015 (Accept V counsel)

SDNY Doc 301 7Dec2015 (Conference Call Cancelled)

SDNY Doc 300 7Dec2015  (Cancel Conference Call on 8Dec2015)

SDNY Doc 299 7Dec2015   (Vringo tells SDNY that both cases have been resolved via confidential settlement)

SDNY Doc 298 3Dec2015  (Google’s Response to Doc 293)

SDNY Doc 297 3Dec2015  (Request for Kevin Smith to appear as Counsel for Google in the NDA case)

SDNY Doc 297-1 3Dec2015  (License to practice ICO Kevin Smith)

SDNY Doc 297-2 3Dec2015   (Proposed Order)

SDNY Doc 296 3Dec2015  (Request for Kevin Smith to appear as Counsel for Google in the NDA case)

SDNY Doc 296-1 3Dec2015  (License to practice ICO Kevin Smith)

SDNY Doc 296-2 3Dec2015  (Proposed Order)

SDNY Doc 295 30Nov2015   (Request for Kevin Smith to appear as Counsel for Google in the NDA case)

SDNY Doc 295-1 30Nov2015  (License to practice ICO Kevin Smith)

SDNY Doc 295-2 30Nov2015  (Proposed Order)

SDNY Doc 294 19Nov2015  (Judge Kaplan assigned G doc issue to Maas)

SDNY Doc 293 18Nov2015  (Mag Judge Maas schedules conference on 8Dec at 9 AM to discuss Google documents)

SDNY Doc 292 16Nov2015  (ZTE’s Opposition to Motion by Vringo)

SDNY Doc 291 16Nov2015  (Google’s Opposition to Motion by Vringo)

SDNY Doc 291-1 16Nov2015  (Emails Between V and G)

SDNY Doc 291-2 16Nov2015  (Emails Between G and V)

SDNY Doc 291-3 16Nov2015  (Declaration of Margaret Wang)

SDNY Doc 290 16Nov2015  (Unopposed Motion to Intervene by Non-Party Google Inc)

SDNY Doc 289 12Nov2015  (UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO VRINGO’S

MOTION TO DE-DESIGNATE CONFIDENTIALITY OF GOOGLE DOCUMENTS)

SDNY Doc 288 10Nov2015  (Memorandum of Law)

SDNY Doc 287 10Nov2015  (Declaration of Wessels-Yen in Support of Motion to Seal)

SDNY Doc 286 10Nov2015  (V Notice of Motion to File Under Seal)

SDNY Doc 285 10Nov2015  (V Motion to De-designate Confidentiality of Google Documents)

SDNY Doc 285-1 Exh A 10Nov2015  (To be filed under seal) NOTHING TO SEE – DO NOT OPEN

SDNY Doc 285-2 Exh B 10Nov2015  (To be filed under seal) NOTHING TO SEE – DO NOT OPEN

SDNY Doc 285-3 Exh C 10Nov2015   (To be filed under seal) NOTHING TO SEE – DO NOT OPEN

SDNY Doc 285-4 Exh D 10Nov2015  (To be filed under seal) NOTHING TO SEE – DO NOT OPEN

SDNY Doc 285-5 Exh E 10Nov2015  (E-mail from V about Google-related documents)

SDNY Doc 285-6 Exh F 10Nov2015  (E-mail from V about Common Interest Agreement btwn Z and G)

SDNY Doc 285-7 Exh G 10Nov2015  (More E-mail from V about Common Interest Agreement btwn Z and G)

SDNY Doc 285-8 Exh H 10Nov2015  (To be filed under seal) NOTHING TO SEE – DO NOT OPEN

SDNY Doc 284 23Oct2015  (Vringo requests 3rd party discovery date be extended for Edelman to 5Nov2015)

SDNY Doc 284-1 Exh A 23Oct2015  (Agreement between Edelman and Vringo for discovery date extension)

SDNY Doc 283 16Oct2015  (Emergency Motion from Vringo to Judge Kaplin to compel Z IRT Google and other 3rd parties)

SDNY Doc 283-1 Exhibit A 16Oct2015

Exhibit B is redacted

SDNY Doc 283-3 Exhibit C 16Oct2015

Exhibit D is redacted

SDNY Doc 283-5 Exhibit E 16Oct2015

SDNY Doc 283-6 Exhibit F 16Oct2015

SDNY Doc 283-7 Exhibit G 16Oct2015

Exhibit H is redacted

Exhibit I is redacted

Exhibit J is redacted

SDNY Doc 283-11 Exhibit K 16Oct2015

SDNY Doc 283-12 Exhibit L 16Oct2015

SDNY Doc 283-13 Exhibit M 16Oct2015

Exhibit N is redacted

Exhibit O is redacted

SDNY Doc 281 and 282 can not be uploaded. Here is an image:

Docs 281 and 282

SDNY Doc 280 16Oct2015  (Judge Kaplan approved Vringo’s request (Doc 278) to extend Expert Discovery deadlines)

SDNY Doc 279 13Oct2015  (Z Response to V Motion for Extension of Expert Deadlines)

SDNY Doc 279-1 Exhibit A 13Oct2015  (Email from V to Z dated 5Oct2015)

SDNY Doc 279-2 Exhibit B 13Oct2015  (Z response on 9Oct2015 to V email from 5Oct2015)

SDNY Doc 278 9Oct2015  (Vringo requests extension of the Expert Discovery deadlines)

SDNY Doc 277 7Oct2015  (Results of TelCon in SDNY)

SDNY Doc 276 6Oct2015  (ZTE is withdrawing their demand for a jury trial; this is their formal request. Doc 254 was a letter stating they wanted to drop the demand, and doc 263 is a letter from V stating they would not object)

I can not access doc 275. Judge Kaplan approved doc 274. Here is a screen shot:

275

SDNY Doc 274 30Sep2015  (V request extension of discovery until 23Oct for Edelman, Grayling and Google)

SDNY Doc 273 28Sept2015  (TelCon rescheduled from 10 AM 29Sept to 3 PM 7Oct)

SDNY Doc 272 22Sept2015  (TelCon scheduled for Sept 29th at 10 AM for all parties)

SDNY 183 31Jul2015  (V Notice of Motion to File Under Seal)

178-10 Exhibit J (Doc that V wishes to have sealed)

SDNY 175 28Jul2015  (Z Notice of Motion to File under Seal)

SDNY Doc 271 17Sept2015

271a

Status of Docs 266, 267, 268, 269 and 270 in SDNY. I do not have access to them.

SDNY Doc 270 17Sept2015

SDNY Docs 266 thru 269 17Sept2015

SDNY Doc 214 8Aug2015 (Z Notice of Motion to file under seal)

SDNY Doc 236 24Aug2015  (Z Notice of Motion to file under seal)

SDNY Doc 241 26Aug2015  (V Notice of Motion to file under seal)

SDNY Doc 265 15Sept2015 (Z’s response to V’s M4S)

SDNY Doc 265-1 Exhibit A 15Sept2015

SDNY Doc 265-2 Exhibit B 15Sept2015

SDNY Doc 265-3 Exhibit C 15Sept2015

SDNY Doc 265-4 Exhibit D 15Sept2015

SDNY Doc 265-5 Exhibit E 15Sept2015

SDNY Doc 264 14Sept2015  (V resubmitted Exhibit L from its’ M4S (Doc 256) in color)

SDNY Doc 263 10Sept2015  (V agrees to Z’s request to forgo a jury trial. Doc 254 pertains)

SDNY Doc 262 8Sept2015  (Kaplan signed off on Amanda Waide for Vringo)

SDNY Doc 261 8Sept2015  (Kaplan signed off on Matthew Justus for Vringo)

SDNY Doc 260 8Sept2015  (Kaplan signed off on Alex Brown for Vringo)

SDNY Doc 259 8Sept2015  (V Declaration ISO Motion to Seal)

SDNY Doc 258 8Sept2015  (V Memorandum of Law ISO Motion to File under Seal)

SDNY Doc 257 8Sept2015  (V Notice of Motion to File under Seal)

SDNY Doc 256 8Sept2015  (V Motion for Sanctions)

SDNY Doc 256-1 Exh A 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 256-2 Exh B 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 256-3 Exh C 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 256-4 Exh D 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 256-5 Exh E 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 256-6 Exh F 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 256-7 Exh G 8Sept2015  (redacted)

SDNY Doc 256-8 Exh H 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 256-9 Exh I 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 256-10 Exh J 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 256-11 Exh K 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 256-12 Exh L 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 256-13 Exh M 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 256-14 Exh N 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 256-15 Exh O 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 255 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 255-1 Exh A 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 255-2 Exh B 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 255-3 Exh C 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 255-4 Exh D 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 255-5 Exh E 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 255-6 Exh F 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 255-7 Exh G 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 255-8 Exh H 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 255-9 Exh I 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 255-10 Exh J 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 255-11 Exh K 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 255-12 Exh l 8Sept2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc 255-13 Exh M 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 255-14 Exh N 8Sept2015

SDNY Doc 254 4Sep2015  (ZTE has decided to withdraw its demand for jury trial and waive the right to jury trial in the NDA case)

SDNY Doc 39 1Aug2014  (ZTE’s original request for a jury trial in case 04988 in which Z is the defendant)

SDNY Doc 31 27Feb2015  (Page 44: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED – Vringo hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues raised in its counterclaims. This doc pertains to Case 00986 in which V is the defendant)

Docs 251, 252, and 253 released by Judge Kaplan in SDNY. Docs 247, 248 and 250 were approved by Kaplan. The approval orders cannot be downloaded:

253

SDNY Doc 250 3Sep2015  (Z’s Motion to Extend Fact Discovery Deadline)

Who is James Bodner of The Cohen Group?  http://www.cohengroup.net/our-people/james-bodner

SDNY Doc 250-1 Exh A 3Sep2015  (V’s Email that does not oppose Z’s Motion to Extend Fact Discovery Deadline)

SDNY Doc 249 3Sep2015  (Z does not oppose V’s Motion to Extend Deadlines – Doc 248)

SDNY Doc 248 3Sep2015  (V asks Judge K to extend Discovery until 24Sept)

SDNY Doc 248-1 Exh A 3Sep2015  (Z’s Fourth Supplemental Responses & Objections dated 29July2015)

SDNY Doc 247 31Aug2015  (V adding new lawyer – Michael L. Brown from Alston & Bird)

SDNY Doc 247-1 31Aug2015  (Certificate of Good Standing – State of GA)

SDNY Doc 247-2 31Aug2015  (Proposed Order)

Michael L. Brown info: http://www.alston.com/professionals/michael-brown/

Document 246 from SDNY can not be downloaded. Kaplan approved Z’s request (Doc 245) to submit

their response to 12 pages vice 4 as well as 5 days vice 2.  Here is what I have access to:

246

SDNY Doc 245 28Aug2015  (ZTE: Motion for leave to file a brief exceeding four pages and for additional time)

Document 244 from SDNY can not be downloaded. Kaplan approved V’s request (Doc 238) to submit

a Motion for Sanctions to 12 pages vice 4.  Here is what I have access to:

244

SDNY Doc 243 26Aug2015  (Memorandum of law in support of motion to file under seal)

SDNY Doc 242 26Aug2015  (Declaration in support of motion to seal)

SDNY Doc 241 26Aug2015  (Notice of Motion to file under seal)

SDNY Doc 240 26Aug2015  (V’s opposition to Z’s Motion to modify the preliminary injunction)

SDNY Doc 240-1 Exhibit A 26Aug2015  (Copy of NDA dated 6Dec2013)

SDNY Doc 240-2 Exhibit B 26Aug2015  (Transcript dated 23Jun2015)

SDNY Doc 240-3 Exhibit C 26Aug2015  (Filed under seal – No reason to open)

SDNY Doc 240-4 Exhibit D 26Aug2015  (Filed under seal – No reason to open)

SDNY Doc 239 25Aug2015  (Z’s response to V’s request to increase page count for sanctions motion)

SDNY Doc 238 25Aug2015  (V requests permission from Kaplan to increase page count from 4 to 12 for sanctions motion)

SDNY Doc 237 24Aug2015  (Z Memorandum of Law ISO Motion to File under seal)

SDNY Doc 236 24Aug2015  (Z Notice of Motion to file under seal)

SDNY Doc 235 24Aug2015  (Z Memorandum of Law ISO Z’s Motion to allow questioning of V witnesses)

SDNY Doc 235-1 Exhibit A 24Aug2015  (Redacted in its entirety – no reason to open)

SDNY Doc 234 24Aug2015  (Z Notice of Motion to allow questioning of V witnesses)

SDNY Doc 233 24Aug2015  (V Response to Z Legal Counsel Request to Withdraw)

SDNY Doc 232 24Aug2015  (Z adding new lawyer: Daniel M. Portnov of C&C)

Link: http://www.cliffordchance.com/people_and_places/people/lawyers/us/daniel_portnov.html

SDNY Doc 231 19Aug2015 (V: Guo not showing up. V will file a motion for sanctions shortly)

SDNY Doc 231-1 19Aug2015  (Z: Gou will not be made available for deposition in NY)

Link to article on Discovery Sanctions:  http://www.exterro.com/blog/e-discovery-sanctions-when-to-hand-out-the-ultimate-punishment-default-judgment/

Link to article on sanctions for spoliation of evidence: http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/07/18/litigation-sanctions-for-spoliation-of-evidence

Link to Rule 37 (Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions):  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37

Link to info on Dispositive Motions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/1081.212

SDNY Doc 230 19Aug2015  (Same as 229, but removed Civ. No. 15-cv-0986 LAK from page 1)

SDNY Doc 230-1 19Aug2015 (Same as 229-1)

SDNY Doc 230-2 19Aug2015 (Same as 229-2)

SDNY Doc 229 19Aug2015  (V: Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice – Alex Brown)

SDNY Doc 229-1 19Aug2015  (Member in Good Standing; State of Georgia)

SDNY Doc 229-2 19Aug2015  (Proposed Order)

Link to Alex Brown Info:  http://www.alston.com/professionals/alexander-g-brown/

SDNY Doc 228 18Aug2015  (Discovery Declaration of King & Spalding LLP)

SDNY Doc 227 18Aug2015  (Declaration of Jeff E. Butler)

SDNY Doc 226 18Aug2015  (ZTE Says Document Production expected to be complete NLT Sept 25th)

NOTE: Document 225 is not available for download or viewing (Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice)

SDNY Doc 224 15Aug2015 (Request for Matthew D. Richardson to appear as Counsel for Vringo)

SDNY Doc 224-1 15Aug2015               SDNY Doc 224-2 15Aug2015

Link1 to Richardson info: http://www.alston.com/professionals/matthew-richardson/

Link2 to Richardson info: http://www.alston.com/news/matt-richardson-named-rising-star/

SDNY Doc 223 13Aug2015 (Vringo Unopposed Motion Regarding Production of Third Party Materials)

SDNY Doc 223-1 Exhibit A 13Aug2015 (Proposed Order Compelling ….)

SDNY Doc 222 12Aug2015 (Memorandum Opinion – corrected)

SDNY Doc 221 11Aug2015 (Vringo Wishes to Withdraw Motion in Document 220; Will file Replacement Motion)

SDNY Doc 220 11Aug2015  (Vringo Unopposed Motion to Compel ZTE’s Production of Licenses and Negotiation Documents)

SDNY Doc 220-1 Exhibit A 11Aug2015

SDNY Doc 220-2 Exhibit B 11Aug2015

SDNY Doc 219 11Aug2015 (Request for Matthew David Justus to appear as Counsel for Vringo)

Link for info on new counsel:  http://www.alston.com/professionals/matthew-justus/

SDNY Doc 219-1 11Aug2015

SDNY Doc 219-2 11Aug2015

SDNY Doc 218 11Aug2015  (Kaplan deals with Guo situation)

SDNY Doc 217 7Aug2015 (ZTE Declaration of Support of Motion for Leave)

SDNY Doc 216 8Aug2015 (ZTE Law Firm K & S Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel)

SDNY Doc 215 8Aug2015 (ZTE Memorandum of Law)

SDNY Doc 214 8Aug2015 (ZTE Notice of Motion)

SDNY Doc 213 8Aug2015 (ZTE Memorandum of Law)

SDNY Doc 212 7Aug2015 (ZTE states reasons sanctions are not supported)

SDNY Doc 211 7Aug2015 (Declaration of Paul A. Strauss; ZTE lawyer arguing against sanctions)

SDNY Doc 210 7Aug2015 (Declaration of Robert F. Perry; ZTE lawyer arguing against sanctions)

SDNY Doc 209 7Aug2015 (Notice of Appearance of Counsel for ZTE; Philip R. Forlenza)

SDNY Doc 208 7Aug2015 (Vringo Declaration ICO Amber Yen)

SDNY Doc 207 7Aug2015 (Vringo Memorandum of Law)

SDNY Doc 206 7Aug2015 (Vringo Notice of Motion to File Under Seal)

SDNY Doc 205 7Aug2015 (This document and all exhibits A – E are about Z and G communications)

SDNY Doc 205-1 Exhibit A 7Aug2015

SDNY Doc 205-2 Exhibit B 7Aug2015

SDNY Doc 205-3 Exhibit C 7Aug2015

SDNY Doc 205-4 Exhibit D 7Aug2015

SDNY Doc 205-5 Exhibit E 7Aug2015

SDNY Doc 204 7Aug2015 (ZTE reports another “leak” of the NDA to a PR firm working for them)

SDNY Doc 203 7Aug2015 (ZTE response to show cause why they should not be sanctioned)

SDNY Doc 203-1 Exhibit A 7Aug2015  (Transcript from June 15th, 2015)

SDNY Doc 202 6Aug2015   /   SDNY Doc 202-1 Exhibit A 6Aug2015 SDNY Doc 201 6Aug2015

SDNY Doc 200 5Aug2015   /   SDNY Doc 200-1 Exhibit A 5Aug2015    /   SDNY Doc 200-2 Exhibit B 5Aug2015

SDNY Doc 199 5Aug2015 SDNY Doc 198 5Aug2015 SDNY Doc197 5Aug2015

SDNY Doc196 5Aug2015 SDNY Doc195 5Aug2015 SDNY Doc194 5Aug2015

SDNY Doc193 5Aug2015    /   SDNY Doc193-1 Exhibit A 5Aug2015   /   SDNY Doc193-2 Exhibit B 5Aug2015

SDNY Doc193-3 Exhibit C 5Aug2015    /   SDNY Doc193-4 Exhibit D 5Aug2015

SDNY Doc193-5 Exhibit E 5Aug2015    /   SDNY Doc193-6 Exhibit F 5Aug2015

SDNY Doc193-7 Exhibit G 5Aug2015    /   SDNY Doc193-8 Exhibit H 5Aug2015

SDNY Doc193-9 Exhibit I 5Aug2015     /    SDNY Doc193-10 Exhibit J 5Aug2015 (redacted)

SDNY Doc192 4Aug2015 (this is BIG folks; please read it)

SDNY Doc191 4Aug2015   (deals w/document 163: SDNY Doc163 24Jul2015 )

SDNY Doc190 4Aug2015 SDNY Doc190-1 Exhibit A 4Aug2015 SDNY Doc190-2 Exhibit B 4Aug2015

(Note: 190 and Exh A/B pertain to Amanda M. Waide of Alston and Bird, LLC being added as V counsel).

http://www.alston.com/professionals/amanda-waide/

SDNY Doc189 3Aug2015 (Note: This is ZTE’s response to Vringo’s Motion to Compel – Document Production).

SDNY 188 3Aug2015 (NOTE: This is ZTE’s response to Vringo’s 2nd Amended Complaint (Doc 145).

SDNY Doc186 3Aug2015

SDNY Doc187 3Aug2015

SDNY 185 31Jul2015 SDNY 184 31Jul2015 SDNY 184-1 Exh A 31Jul2015

SDNY 183 31Jul2015

SDNY Doc182 31Jul2015

SDNY Doc181 31Jul2015

SDNY Doc180 31Jul2015

179-main

179-1 Exhibit A 179-2 Exhibit B 179-3 Exhibit C 179-4 Exhibit D 179-5 Exhibit E 179-6 Exhibit F 179-7 Exhibit G

178-main

178-1 Exhibit A  178-2 Exhibit B  178-3 Exhibit C  178-4 Exhibit D  178-5 Exhibit E

178-6 Exhibit F 178-7 Exhibit G 178-8 Exhibit H 178-9 Exhibit I 178-10 Exhibit J 178-11 Exhibit K

178-12 Exhibit L 178-13 Exhibit M 178-14 Exhibit N 178-15 Exhibit O 178-16 Exhibit P 178-17 Exhibit Q

177 is sealed and can not be accessed. SDNY 176 28Jul2015 SDNY 175 28Jul2015

SDNY 174 28Jul2015 SDNY 174-1 Exh A 28Jul2015 SDNY 173 28Jul2015

SDNY 172 28Jul2015 – You do not have access to this transcript.

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 7/22/2015 before Magistrate Judge Frank Maas. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Tara Jones, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/21/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/31/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/29/2015.(Rodriguez, Somari)

SDNY 171 28Jul2015 SDNY Doc170 27Jul2015

SDNY Doc 169 27Jul2015 (This is a transcript of the telcon on 15Jun2015) I am not able to access it.

SDNY Doc168 27Jul2015 SDNY Doc167 24Jul2015 SDNY Doc166 24Jul2015 SDNY Doc165 24Jul2015

SDNY Doc164 24Jul2015 SDNY Doc163 24Jul2015 (Note: Exhibits A thru O all redacted)

SDNY Doc162 24Jul2015 SDNY Doc161 23Jul2015 SDNY Doc160 23Jul2015 SDNY Doc159 22Jul2015

SDNY Doc158 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc158-1 Exh A 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc158-2 Exh B 21Jul2015

SDNY Doc158-3 Exh C 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc158-4 Exh D 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc158-5 Exh E 21Jul2015

SDNY Doc158-6 Exh F 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc158-7 Exh G 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc158-8 Exh H 21Jul2015

SDNY Doc158-9 Exh I 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc158-10 Exh J 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc158-11 Exh K 21Jul2015

SDNY Doc157 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc156 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc155 21Jul2015

SDNY Doc154 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc154-1 Exh A 21Jul2015 (Note: Redacted in its entirety; no need to open)

SDNY Doc154-2 Exh B 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc154-3 Exh C 21Jul2015 SDNY Doc154-4 Exh D 21Jul2015

(Docs 151, 152 & 153 are sealed and unavailable) –

Docs 151, 152 and 153 are sealed and unavailable SDNY Doc150 16Jul2015 SDNY 149 15Jul2015

SDNY Document 117 dated 2June2015:

Link to Rule 59 (Matters before a Magistrate Judge): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_59

SDNY Doc117 3Jun2015

 


SDNY Doc116 2June2015

Note: Judge Kaplan’s handwriting on page 2 – “Granted without prejudice to any motion by ZTE to unseal.”

SDNY Doc111 1June2015SDNY Doc111 ExhA 1June2015 / SDNY Doc111 ExhB 1June2015 / 

SDNY Doc111 ExhC 1June2015 / SDNY Doc111 ExhD 1June2015 / SDNY Doc112 1June2015

SDNY Doc113 1June2015 / SDNY Doc114 1June2015 / SDNY Doc115 1June2015 / SDNY Doc115 ExhA 1June2015   SDNY Doc115 ExhB 1June2015 / 

SDNY Doc111 1June2015 / SDNY Doc111 ExhA 1June2015 / SDNY Doc111 ExhB 1June2015

SDNY Doc111 ExhC 1June2015 / SDNY Doc111 ExhD 1June2015 / SDNY Doc112 1June2015

SDNY Doc113 1June2015 / SDNY Doc114 1June2015 / SDNY Doc115 1June2015    SDNY Doc115 ExhA 1June2015   SDNY Doc115 ExhB 1June2015

Note – OAEO: Outside Attorney(s) Eyes Only

SDNY Doc 109 14May2015

SDNY Doc 91 6Apr2015

SDNY Doc 90 6Apr2015

04/20/2015 Document 104 and 105

104 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 4/8/2015 before Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jennifer Thun, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/14/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/26/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2015.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 04/20/2015)

105 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 4/8/2015 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days…(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 04/20/2015)

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/thread/3987/vringo-zte-usa?page=6#ixzz3Xtk2r9B0

04/14/2015 Document 57
STIPULATION AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned attorneys for ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, “ZTE”) and Vringo, Inc. and Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. (collectively, “Vringo”) that ZTE’s time to answer Counts II and III of Vringo’s Counterclaims in the above-captioned action is extended to and including April 27, 2015. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Vringo may file one supplemental complaint without seeking leave from the Court, without prejudice to ZTE’s right to move to dismiss the supplemental complaint or to oppose it on any ground other than the need to obtain leave under Rule 15(a)(2). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 4/14/2015) (ajs) (Main Document 57 replaced on 4/14/2015) (ajs). (Entered: 04/14/2015)

04/15/2015 Document 102

– ORDER granting 97 Motion to Seal Document. The parties seek the entry of a protective order and have agreed in substantial respects to its terms. See DI 96, DI 98. The remaining issues are disposed of as follows: 1. Documents may be designated either as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential: Attorneys Eyes Only – US Only.” Vringo’s request to add an additional (mid-level) designation – “Highly Confidential – US Only” – is denied. Vringo has not shown that the distinction is sufficiently sensible. The Court notes, for example, that Vringo seeks to allow the producing party, in its complete discretion, to designate any document that “could be potentially prejudicial to the business or operations of such Producing Party” either as “Confidential” or as “Highly Confidential – US Only.” The Court concludes that this would lead to needless objections to the appropriateness of the confidentiality designations. 2. Internal counsel may not access documents designated “Highly Confidential: Attorneys Eyes Only – US Only,” unless otherwise permitted by the terms of the protective order. The disclosure of “trade secret or other confidential research, development, financial, proprietary information, or highly sensitive commercial or competitive information” to internal counsel could potentially prejudice the business or operations of the producing party to the extent that internal counsel are involved in corporate decisions. Vringo’s request to allow two internal counsel to access such information therefore is denied. 3. Vringo proposes also that “Highly Confidential: Attorneys Eyes Only – US Only” documents “shall not be deemed to be within the possession, custody or control of the Receiving Party.” In substance, then, Vringo is asking for an advisory opinion regarding all such documents. The Court will not entertain such a request. Finally, Vringo’s motion to seal the unredacted version of its letter dated April 10, 2015 [DI 97] is granted. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 4/15/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 04/15/2015)

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/thread/3987/vringo-zte-usa?page=6#ixzz3XREe0Lh5

Read more: http://vringo.freeforums.net/thread/3987/vringo-zte-usa?page=6#ixzz3XRE0xGu2

L1a: http://vringo.freeforums.net/thread/3987/vringo-zte-usa?page=6#ixzz3XHDjOGRc (may have to be a member to read)

L1b: Vringo Amended Answer and Counter-Claim http://www.vringoip.com/documents/FG/vringo/ip/338508_SDNY_Global_FRAND_-_File_Stamped_Amended_Answer_January_27_2015.pdf

Q2: What has happened in the Southern District of New York

A2: April 8, 2015 – Vringo announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that ZTE violated the non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) with Vringo that formed the original basis for Vringo`s claim against ZTE in the United States.  In an order released April 6, 2015, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted Vringo`s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the question of whether or not ZTE breached the NDA entered into by the parties.

On April 7, 2015, the Court held a Status Conference. Following the Status Conference, the Court granted Vringo`s requests to consolidate the NDA case and the FRAND case for the purposes of pretrial discovery, to extend the deadline for fact discovery, to set a deadline for the filing of dispositive motions, and to seal the unredacted version of Vringo`s Motion to Compel. Discovery to be complete by August 3rd, 2015.

L2a: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zte-found-breach-contract-123101918.html

L2b: http://postimg.org/image/5ep7zrdjl/

Q3: What is happening with the USPTO

A3: June 8th, 2015: ZTE WITHDRAWS PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF VRINGO PATENTS

NEW YORK – June 8, 2015 – Vringo, Inc. (VRNG), a company engaged in the innovation, development and monetization of intellectual property, today announced that ZTE has withdrawn petitions for the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of five of Vringo`s United States Patents.

ZTE`s United States subsidiary, ZTE (USA) Inc., filed petitions for IPR of five of Vringo`s United States Patents on February 5, 2015. While Vringo has asserted counterparts of all five patents against ZTE in other jurisdictions, Vringo has never asserted those United States Patents against ZTE. On April 7, 2015, ZTE filed corrected IPR petitions for each patent. On May 11, 2015, ZTE filed second corrected IPR petitions for each patent. In a ruling, issued on June 2, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office held that ZTE was not permitted to file such corrected petitions, and, instead, should have filed new petitions. In its ruling, the PTAB gave ZTE leave to withdraw its IPR petitions by June 5, 2015. On June 5, 2015, ZTE filed motions to dismiss without prejudice all five of the IPR petitions filed against Vringo`s United States Patents.

“ZTE`s latest litigation misstep is another example of its meritless campaign to discredit Vringo,” said Andrew Perlman, Chief Executive Officer of Vringo. “Vringo is confident that courts around the world will continue to judge Vringo`s cases against ZTE on their merits,” Mr. Perlman continued.

L3: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-inc-zte-withdraws-petitions-130201372.html

October 28th, 2015:

In China, the Patent Re-Examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People`s Republic of China today, following an earlier oral hearing, upheld the validity of ZL200580013835.X in response to a re-examination request filed by ZTE. This patent is the Chinese equivalent of IN 243,980, which is currently being asserted against ZTE in India. This was ZTE`s second attempt to invalidate the patent, following ZTE`s withdrawal of its first re-examination request.

ZTE has filed re-examination requests for 33 of Vringo`s Chinese Patents. To date, 18 of those patents have been maintained valid, 2 have been maintained valid-in-part, and 13 have been found invalid, and are pending appeal.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vringo-provides-challenges-validity-vringo-140101080.html

Q4: What is the background in the SDNY

A4: On July 2, 2014, Vringo filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions against ZTE, enjoining ZTE’s use of prohibited materials captured under NDA, including but not limited to ZTE’s use of such materials in its antitrust lawsuit in China against Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure. On July 7, 2014, the court granted a temporary restraining order against ZTE’s use of such material. On July 23, 2014, ZTE filed a counterclaim against Vringo. On July 24, 2014, the Court held a hearing on Vringo’s motion for a preliminary injunction against ZTE. A ruling on this motion is pending. On October 2, 2014, Vringo filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, similar to a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to render a judgment on Vringo’s cause of action based solely on the pleadings of the parties. On April 6, 2015, the Court granted Vringo’s motion in part, holding that ZTE breached the NDA.

On February 5, 2015, ZTE filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Vringo breached its contractual obligations to ETSI, which it assumed from Nokia when it purchased its infrastructure patent portfolio. On February 6, 2015, the Court granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Vringo. On February 10, 2015, the Court dissolved the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and granted Vringo’s request to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On February 5, 2015, ZTE filed inter partes review (“IPR”) requests for five of Vringo’s United States Patents. The requests, filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office will remain pending until the PTAB makes a decision on whether to grant the requests and, thus, review the patents. While these patents have counterparts being litigated by Vringo in other parts of the world, none of these United States Patents are currently in litigation.

L4: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm


ZTE (European Commission)

EU’s Vestager says undecided yet on opening ZTE, Vringo probe

FLORENCE, Italy, Sept 11 (Reuters) – EU regulators have yet to decide whether to wade into a patent dispute between ZTE and New York-based patent licensing firm Vringo , despite a year-old complaint by the Chinese handset maker, the bloc’s antitrust chief said.

ZTE took its grievance to the European Commision in June last year after failing to reach a deal with Vringo on charges for using the U.S. company’s patents, which are necessary for its products to work with industry standards.

The company, one of the world’s largest telecommunications equipment makers, said the dispute dated to 2012, when Vringo bought a series of wireless patents from Nokia Corp.

ZTE is also battling Vringo in courts in the United States, Brazil, Britain, Romania and other countries.

Asked whether the Commission has decided to open a case, European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on the sidelines of an International Bar Association conference on Friday: “Not decided.”

The spat between ZTE and Vringo is one of many in the sector. Apple, Samsung and Google have been locked in patent disputes with various rivals at various times.

Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/eus-vestager-says-undecided-yet-112204091.html?.tsrc=applewf

B: On April 10, 2014, ZTE filed a complaint with the European Commission. We believe that the accusations are not accurate. The European Commission has not yet set the schedule for this matter.

L: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410428/000114420415027179/v409287_424b5.htm

ZTE General Question(s):

Q1: What is keeping ZTE from settling with VRNG

A1: ZTE only wants to license those patents that have been found both valid and infringed by the court in each country. VRNG wants to sell ZTE a global license. Our only real hope is that damages and injunctions awarded by the court hurt ZTE enough to force them into a global license agreement, otherwise, we will be involved in court battles going well into 2016.


ZTE (NDRC)

B: 28 April 2015, Shenzhen, China – ZTE Corporation is pleased to report that the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court has set the dates it will hear ZTE’s anti-monopoly litigation case against Vringo. A closed evidentiary hearing has been set for Friday, May 29, 2015, at which both parties are required to submit their evidence. The court will hold a private hearing on the case on June 1, and all materials, submitted evidence and testimonies are considered confidential.

Link1: http://wwwen.zte.com.cn/en/press_center/news/201504/t20150429_433482.html

Link2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/78.14