Vringo, Inc. (NYSE MKT: VRNG), a company engaged in the
innovation, development and monetization of mobile technologies and
intellectual property, today announced a verdict in its
wholly-owned subsidiary I/P Engine, Inc.'s case against AOL, Inc.
("AOL"), Google, Inc. ("Google"), IAC Search & Media, Inc.
("IAC"), Gannett Company, Inc. ("Gannett"), and Target Corporation
("Target") (collectively, "Defendants") with respect to the
Defendants' infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,314,420 (the "'420 Patent") and 6,775,664 (the "'664 Patent")
(collectively, the "Patents").
The jury unanimously returned a verdict as follows:
- I/P Engine had proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Defendants infringed the
asserted claims of the Patents.
- Defendants had not proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the Patents are
invalid by anticipation.
The Court stated that it will decide the ultimate legal
conclusion on whether the patents are invalid for obviousness. The
jury answered the Court's factual questions with respect to
obviousness as follows:
- Question for the Patents: What was the
scope and content of the prior art at the time of the claimed
invention?Answer: No prior art applies because (1) the Bowman and
Culliss references identified by Defendants lack any content
analysis and filtering for relevance to the query and (2) other
references identified by Defendants relate to profile system that
do not disclose a tightly integrated search systems and could not
filter information relevant to the query.
- Question for the '420 Patent: What
difference, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
prior art at the time of the claimed invention?Answer: The Bowman
and Culliss references did not disclose either limitation (b) (a
content-based filter and could not filter information relevant to
the query) or (d) (combining feedback data with profile data) of
independent claims 10 and 25. The other asserted references – Rose,
Lashkari, and Fab, were profile systems that did not disclose a
tightly integrated search system, and could not filter information
relevant to the query.
- Question for the '664 Patent: What
difference, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
prior art at the time of the claimed invention?Answer: The Bowman
and Culliss references do not disclose limitation (c) of the
independent claims 1 and 26, because those references do not have a
content-based filter that could not filter information relevant to
a query, or combine information from a feedback system with content
profile data. The other asserted references – Rose, Lashkari, and
Fab, were profile systems that did not disclose a tightly
integrated search system, and could not filter information relevant
to the query.
- Question for the '420 Patent: Which of
the following factors has been established by the evidence with
respect to the claimed invention? ("[X]" means the jury indicated
the factor did apply, and "[ ]" means the jury indicated the factor
did not apply.)
[X] Commercial success of a product due to
the merits of the claimed invention.
[X] A long felt need for the solution that is
provided by the claimed invention.
[X] Unsuccessful attempts by others to find
the solution that is provided by the claimed invention.
[X] Copying of the claimed invention by
others.
[X] Unexpected and superior results from the
claimed invention.
[X] Acceptance by others of the claimed
invention as shown by praise from others in the field or from the
licensing of the claimed invention.
[ ] Independent invention of the claimed
invention by others before or at about the same time the named
inventor thought of it.
[ ] Other factor(s) indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness — describe the factor(s).
- Question for the '664 Patent: Which of
the following factors has been established by the evidence with
respect to the claimed invention?
[X] Commercial success of a product due to
the merits of the claimed invention.
[X] A long felt need for the solution that is
provided by the claimed invention.
[ ] Unsuccessful attempts by others to find
the solution that is provided by the claimed invention.
[X] Copying of the claimed invention by
others.
[X] Unexpected and superior results from the
claimed invention.
[X] Acceptance by others of the claimed
invention as shown by praise from others in the field or from the
licensing of the claimed invention.
[X] Independent invention of the claimed
invention by others before or at about the same time the named
inventor thought of it.
[ ] Other factor(s) indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness — describe the factor(s).
After finding that the asserted claims of the Patents were both
valid and infringed by Google, the jury found that reasonable
royalty damages should be based on a "running royalty", and that
the running royalty rate should be 3.5%.
After finding that the asserted claims of the Patents were both
valid and infringed by the Defendants, the jury found that the
following sums of money, if paid now in cash, would reasonably
compensate I/P Engine for the Defendants past infringement as
follows:
- Google: $15,800,000
- AOL: $7,943,000
- IAC: $6,650,000
- Gannett: $4,322
- Target: $98,833
Vringo intends to file a copy of the executed Verdict Form with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K when
available.
I/P Engine and Defendants are allowed to file post-trial motions
with the Court.
The case is styled I/P Engine, Inc. vs. AOL Inc. et al., and is
pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Norfolk Division. The case number is 2:11cv512RAJ. The
court docket for the case is publicly available on the Public
Access to Court Electronic Records website, www.pacer.gov, which is
operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
About Vringo, Inc.
Vringo, Inc. is engaged in the innovation, development and
monetization of mobile technologies and intellectual property.
Vringo's intellectual property portfolio consists of over 500
patents and patent applications covering telecom infrastructure,
internet search, and mobile technologies. The patents and patent
applications have been developed internally, and acquired from
third parties. Vringo operates a global platform for the
distribution of mobile social applications and services including
Facetones® and Video Ringtones which transform the basic act of
making and receiving mobile phone calls into a highly visual,
social experience. For more information, visit:
www.vringoIP.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release includes forward-looking statements, which
may be identified by words such as "believes," "expects,"
"anticipates," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "should,"
"seeks," "future," "continue," or the negative of such terms, or
other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are
statements that are not historical facts. Such forward-looking
statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could
cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking
statements contained herein. Factors that could cause actual
results to differ materially include, but are not limited to: the
inability to realize the potential value created by the merger with
Innovate/Protect for our stockholders; our inability to raise
additional capital to fund our combined operations and business
plan; our inability to monetize and recoup our investment with
respect to patent assets that we acquire; our inability to maintain
the listing of our securities on the NYSE MKT; the potential lack
of market acceptance of our products; our inability to protect our
intellectual property rights; potential competition from other
providers and products; our inability to license and monetize the
patents owned by Innovate/Protect, including the outcome of the
litigation against online search firms and other companies; our
inability to monetize and recoup our investment with respect to
patent assets that we acquire; and other risks and uncertainties
and other factors discussed from time to time in our filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), including our
quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on August 14,
2012. Vringo expressly disclaims any obligation to publicly update
any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a
result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as
required by law.