Loading...
Loading...
Vringo, Inc.
, a company engaged in the innovation,
development and monetization of mobile technologies and intellectual property,
today provided a summary of three motions filed with the Court last night in
its wholly-owned subsidiary I/P Engine, Inc.'s litigation against AOL, Inc.,
Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., and Target
Corporation (collectively, "Defendants"). The summary is qualified in its
entirety by the text of the court filings, which are online at
www.VringoInc.com under the heading "Enforcement Activities".
Background
On November 6, 2012, a jury in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia ruled
in favor of I/P Engine and against Defendants with respect to Defendants'
infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,420 and
6,775,664. After finding that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were
both valid, and infringed by Defendants, the jury found that reasonable
royalty damages should be based on a "running royalty," and that the running
royalty rate should be 3.5%. On November 20, the clerk entered the Court's
final judgment. I/P Engine presented evidence at trial that the appropriate
way to determine the incremental royalty base attributable to Google's
infringement was to calculate 20.9% of Google's U.S. AdWords revenue, then
apply a 3.5% running royalty rate to that base.
I/P Engine's Motion for an Award of Post-Judgment Royalties
[http://bit.ly/UPYkFh]
In this motion, I/P Engine requested that the Court order Defendants to pay an
ongoing running royalty for their continuing infringement of I/P Engine's
patents from November 20, the date of the entry of final judgment, until
either (i) Defendants cease their infringement or (ii) April 4, 2016, the
expiration date of the patents.
I/P Engine argued that the Court should conclude that an upward adjustment to
a 5% running royalty rate for Defendants' ongoing post-judgment infringement
is appropriate. I/P Engine's damages expert, Dr. Stephen Becker, also reached
the conclusion that there is no reason to depart downward from the 5% royalty
rate because the patents are known to be valid and the patented technology is
acknowledged to be "mission critical" for Google.
Further, I/P Engine argued that Defendants' ongoing infringement is
undisputedly willful because Defendants are fully aware that their use of
AdWords has been adjudged to infringe all of the asserted claims of the valid
and enforceable patents-in-suit. Therefore, I/P Engine requested that the
Court enhance the ongoing royalty rate to 7% in light of Defendants' ongoing
willful infringement.
Finally, I/P Engine requested that this Court order that, among other things,
Defendants pay ongoing royalties to I/P Engine on a quarterly basis in
certified funds or by wire transfer, accompanied by a statement certifying,
under penalty of perjury, the U.S. revenue attributable to Defendants' use of
AdWords and the calculation of the royalty amount.
Loading...
Loading...
© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Benzinga simplifies the market for smarter investing
Trade confidently with insights and alerts from analyst ratings, free reports and breaking news that affects the stocks you care about.
Join Now: Free!
Already a member?Sign in