Vringo

Last updated
Vringo
Company type Public
Nasdaq:  VRNG
Industry Consumer electronics
Telecommunications
Video ringtones
Founded2006
Headquarters
New York, NY
Key people
Andrew Perlman (CEO)
Donald E. Stout (Director)
Ashley C. Keller (Director)
Alexander R. Berger (Director, COO)
H. Van Sinclair (Director)
David L. Cohen (Chief Legal Officer)
Clifford J. Weinstein (Executive Vice President)
Website vringoip.com/cgi-bin/index.pl

Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. [1] The company won a 2012 intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U.S. District Court ordered Google to pay 1.36 percent of U.S. AdWords sales. Analysts estimated Vringo's judgment against Google to be worth over $1 billion. [2] The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August 2014 in a split 2-1 decision, [3] which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of 2014." [4] Vringo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. [5] Vringo also pursued worldwide litigation against ZTE Corporation in twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, India, Spain, Netherlands (the Hague), Romania, China, Malaysia, Brazil and the United States. [6] The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll. [7]

Contents

History

Vringo was founded in 2006 by Israeli entrepreneurs and venture capitalist Jonathan Medved [8] and mobile software specialist David Goldfarb. [9] The company was initially funded by private equity firm Warburg Pincus in 2007. By December 2009, it had raised $14 million in funding. Vringo priced its initial public offering on June 22, 2010, and raised $11 million. [10] [11] [12]

On March 14, 2012, Vringo entered into a definitive agreement to merge with Innovate/Protect, an intellectual property company founded by Andrew Kennedy Lang, the former chief technology officer at Lycos, [13] and Alexander R. Berger, a Vice President at Hudson Bay Capital Management. At that time, Andrew Perlman, Vringo's then-President, replaced Jonathan Medved as CEO. [14] The merger with Innovate/Protect was completed on July 19, 2012, with Lang joining Vringo as chief technology officer, and Berger as chief operating officer. Innovate/Protect directors H. Van Sinclair, Chief Executive Officer of the RLJ Companies, and Donald E. Stout, the president of NTP, Inc., which collected $612.5 million from BlackBerry-maker RIM, joined the Vringo board of directors in connection with the merger. [15] [16]

James Altucher, a graduate school colleague of Lang, posted an article [17] on Tech Crunch drawing attention to the history of the patents that Vringo had acquired from Lycos. [18] On April 13, 2012, billionaire investor Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and "shark" investor on the television series Shark Tank, disclosed a 7.4% stake in the company. [19]

The company was invited to ring the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange on August 1, 2012, to mark the successful completion of the merger. [20] In August 2012, the company raised $31.2 million to buy 124 patent families relating to telecommunications and infrastructure technology from Nokia Corp. [21] In an October 2012 common stock offering, Vringo raised an additional $45 million. [22] In April 2013, Vringo's shares commenced trading on the NASDAQ. [23]

Lycos Search Patents - Google Litigation

Through its merger with Innovate/Protect, Inc. in July 2012, Vringo acquired ownership of patents that had been purchased from Lycos, Inc. and were asserted in a patent infringement lawsuit against AOL Inc., Google, IAC/InterActiveCorp-owned IAC Search & Media, Gannett Co Inc. and Target Corp. The lawsuit went to trial on October 16, 2012, in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division before U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. [24] [25]

Following a three week jury trial, on November 6, 2012, a jury ruled in favor of Vringo's wholly owned subsidiary, I/P Engine, and against the defendants with respect to defendants' infringement of the asserted claims of the patents. [26] 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%. [27] 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. The U.S. District Court entered a judgment against the defendants in November 2012. [28]

In May 2013, the defendants argued that I/P Engine was not entitled to any post-judgment royalties because they had ceased infringement by changing the AdWords system. In January 2014, the U.S. District Court found that Google's purported design-around known as "new AdWords" was "nothing more than a colorable variation of old AdWords." [29] Later in January 2014, the U.S. District Court found that the "Defendants' misconduct continues presently and Defendants have taken no remedial action. In fact, they have designed a system that clearly replicates the infringing elements of old AdWords," and for those reasons, the court enhanced the royalty rate "by just over 40% to 6.5%." [30]

Vringo has drawn criticism over some of its litigation tactics. A Google spokesperson said on January 22, 2014, after losing the trial and post-trial motion practice, that the AdWords case "further highlights the mischief trolls can make with the patent system". [31]

Separate from the civil litigation, Google sought to invalidate I/P Engine's two asserted patents through a total of four re-examination requests at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. I/P Engine prevailed in defending the validity of the patents in every instance, and received a certificate from the USPTO confirming that all of the claims of the patents challenged by Google remained valid and unchanged. [32]

On August 15, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 2-1 split decision, reversed the U.S. District Court decision concerning the patent infringement lawsuit filed against Google et al. The presiding Circuit Judges concluded that, notwithstanding U.S. District Court judge and jury having affirmed the validity of I/P Engine's patents, and the USPTO having likewise affirmed the validity of the patents, the patents were "Obvious" and therefore invalid. In dissenting, Circuit Judge Raymond Chen highlighted the majority opinion's failure "to accord sufficient deference to the jury's findings of fact," and explained that the majority's conclusion "squarely conflicts with the jury's express finding" that the prior art lacked specific elements claimed by the patents in suit. [33] Intellectual Asset Magazine called the decision "the most troubling patent case of 2014," and said the appeals court's decision "should be of huge concern to all patent owners in the U.S." [34] I/P Engine hired David Boies to file a petition at the Supreme Court of the United States seeking a review of the case. [35]

Nokia and Alcatel Lucent Patents - ZTE Litigation

Vringo acquired 124 patent families relating to telecommunications and infrastructure from Nokia Corp. in August 2012. The 124 patent families comprised over 500 patents and applications including 110 issued patents in the U.S. Over 45 patents families have at least one patent in force in various European jurisdictions. [36] The portfolio included over 20 standard essential patents (SEPs).

Vringo filed lawsuits against ZTE Corporation and many of its subsidiaries over failure to take a license to telecom infrastructure patents that Vringo acquired from Nokia Corporation and Alcatel-Lucent. Prior to filing, Vringo attempted to secure a license with ZTE, [37] which ZTE rebuffed, as it had when Nokia had made attempts at a licensing deal over the prior ten year period. [38] David L. Cohen, Vringo's chief legal officer, led Vringo's international litigation efforts. Cohen was formerly an attorney at Skadden Arps and an in-house lawyer at Nokia, where he was the global manager of Nokia's litigation against Apple that resulted in a payment of over €500 million. [39]

Worldwide Patent Enforcement

Vringo brought the first case on October 8, 2012, in the UK. [40] and a second on December 5, 2012. [41] On November 28, 2014, the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom found that ZTE infringed the asserted patent, which relates to 3G and 4G infrastructure equipment, and also confirmed that the asserted patent was valid as amended. [42] The UK court later ordered ZTE to pay Vringo's costs. The company filed a lawsuit against ZTE in Germany on November 15, 2012.

After ZTE rejected Vringo's offer to license its portfolio at a FRAND rate, Vringo sued ZTE in Australia [43] and Malaysia. [44] In India, Vringo secured two injunctions and raids on ZTE's factories and facilities. [45] [46]

Southern District of New York (SDNY), United States

In connection with ZTE's filing an anti-monopoly (AML) case against Vringo in Shenzhen, China, ZTE both discussed in its complaint and filed as an exhibit the confidential settlement proposal that Vringo made to ZTE at a meeting between ZTE and Vringo representatives in Shenzhen, China, in December 2013 pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement. Vringo filed suit against ZTE in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of the non-disclosure agreement. [47] In proceedings before U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, Vringo sought and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a preliminary injunction (PI) preventing further disclosures of the confidential settlement materials.

In February 2015, ZTE and Vringo representatives agreed to meet in Vringo's office to discuss possible settlement options. On the same day, ZTE filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Delaware seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction for a world-wide anti-suit injunction against Vringo. Because ZTE's counsel misled U.S. District Judge Gregory M. Sleet about the availability of Vringo's counsel, omitted the existence of the pending case in New York, and mis-stated the facts of Vringo's injunction in Romania, the Delaware judge granted ZTE's request. The following week, when Vringo made Judge Sleet aware of the facts of the case, he rescinded the order, transferred ZTE's case to the Southern District of New York, and noted he and Judge Kaplan had, referring to ZTE's conduct, "commiserated on the happenings here, not altogether a happy visit." [48]

During discovery, Vringo uncovered that ZTE shared the confidential materials with a very large number of ZTE staff, its public relations firm, Google, the Chinese patent office, and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). In the course of the litigation, Judge Kaplan ordered ZTE's attorneys at King & Spalding LLP to show cause for why they should not be sanctioned for intentional discovery delays and harassment. [49] The question of relevant sanctions against ZTE's counsel was pending at the time of the settlement. [50] In 2017, a former King & Spalding attorney sued the firm alleging that he was fired for raising ethical concerns about the conduct of two of the firm's partners in the Vringo vs. ZTE case. [51] ZTE also refused to send its general counsel, Guo Xiaoming, to New York to appear in the case, saying it believed he could be questioned or detained in relation to a separate criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for which a grand jury in Texas had been empaneled, into allegations ZTE shipped millions of dollars of banned U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran. [52] [53] Vringo pursued ZTE for sanctions, and Judge Kaplan explained the situation in a detailed memorandum opinion drawing on testimony by Vringo's COO Berger and ZTE's representative Z. Wang. [54]

Vringo also discovered that e-mails from ZTE officials showed ZTE's "efforts to manipulate Vringo's stock price" and "to give a blow to Vringo's share price in terms of brand to further affect its business activities." ZTE officials also wrote they believed the litigation with Vringo was "the biggest [IP] risk for ZTE at present" and that the "share price is Vringo's biggest weakness, and also the place where we can attack." [55]

NDRC Investigation

In January 2015, China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) commenced an investigation of Vringo and summoned a representative of Vringo to appear in China and meet with regulators. [56] In audio-recorded meetings, [57] Xu Xinyu, known as "Mr. Confession", [58] threatened Vringo's representative, Mr. Cohen, forced him to sign a statement in Chinese, reprimanded him for not being obsequious, and threatened to take all of Vringo's Chinese patents by force. The NDRC insisted that Vringo accept mediation by the NDRC or otherwise resolve its disputes with ZTE, or Cohen could face criminal sanctions and extradition requests. [59] [55] The Washington Post highlighted [60] the NRDC's investigation into Vringo as an example of how, U.S. business leaders believe "China's government, companies, and even courts sometimes collude to abuse patent protection, discriminate against foreign firms and unfairly protect local businesses." [52]

Settlement

On December 7, 2015, ZTE entered into an agreement with Vringo to pay them a lump sum settlement amount of $21.5 million.

Awards

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Qualcomm</span> American semiconductor company

Qualcomm Incorporated is an American multinational corporation headquartered in San Diego, California, and incorporated in Delaware. It creates semiconductors, software, and services related to wireless technology. It owns patents critical to the 5G, 4G, CDMA2000, TD-SCDMA and WCDMA mobile communications standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eolas</span> American technology firm

Eolas is a United States technology firm formed as a spin-off from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in order to commercialize UCSF's patents for work done there by Eolas' co-founders, as part of the Visible Embryo Project. The company was founded in 1994 by Dr. Michael Doyle, Rachelle Tunik, David Martin, and Cheong Ang from the UCSF Center for Knowledge Management (CKM). The company was created at the request of UCSF, and was founded by the inventors of the university's patents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent troll</span> Pejorative term related to intellectual property

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities, which do not practice their asserted patent, may not be considered "patent trolls", when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

NTP, Inc. is a Virginia-based patent holding company founded in 1992 by the late inventor Thomas J. Campana Jr. and Donald E. Stout. The company's primary asset is a portfolio of 50 US patents and additional pending US and international patent applications. These patents and patent applications disclose inventions in the fields of wireless email and RF Antenna design. The named inventors include Andrew Andros and Thomas Campana. About half of the US patents were originally assigned to Telefind Corporation, a Florida-based company partly owned by Campana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paltalk</span> Video group chat service

Paltalk is a proprietary video group chat service that enables users to communicate by video, Internet chat, or voice. It offers chat rooms and the ability for users to create their own public virtual chat room. Paltalk Desktop is available on macOS and Windows, and Paltalk Video Chat App is available for Android and iOS. While basic services are free of charge and basic software is free to download, fee-based memberships and paid upgrades to more capable versions are offered by AVM Software, the creators of Paltalk.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas</span> United States federal district court in Texas

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is a federal court in the Fifth Circuit.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Uniloc Corporation is a company founded in Australia in 1992.

Illumina, Inc. is an American biotechnology company, headquartered in San Diego, California. Incorporated on April 1, 1998, Illumina develops, manufactures, and markets integrated systems for the analysis of genetic variation and biological function. The company provides a line of products and services that serves the sequencing, genotyping and gene expression, and proteomics markets, and serves more than 155 countries.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i> Legal case

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

Microsoft has been involved in numerous high-profile legal matters that involved litigation over the history of the company, including cases against the United States, the European Union, and competitors.

Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc., was a company based in New Haven, Connecticut, that created software using ideas from the book Mirror Worlds: or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox...How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean (1992) by Yale professor David Gelernter, who helped found the company with Eric Freeman and served as chief scientist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. Rodney Gilstrap</span> American judge (born 1957)

James Rodney Gilstrap is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He is notable for presiding over more than one quarter of all patent infringement cases filed in the nation and is often referred to by various sources as the country's single "busiest patent judge."

The smartphone wars or smartphone patents licensing and litigation refers to commercial struggles among smartphone manufacturers including Sony Mobile, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Huawei, LG Electronics, ZTE and HTC, by patent litigation and other means. The conflict is part of the wider "patent wars" between technology and software corporations.

Yahoo! has been a party to several instances of litigation.

Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. was one of a series of lawsuits between technology companies Motorola Mobility and Apple Inc. In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement, and encompassed multiple venues in multiple countries as each party sought friendly forums for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included administrative law rulings as well as United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and European Commission involvement. In April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue not addressed in the Supreme Court's default analysis using the exhaustion doctrine in Quanta v. LG Electronics. In June 2012, appellate judge Richard Posner dismissed the U.S. case with prejudice and the parties appealed the decision a month later.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones since the early 2010s, and made about 40% of all smartphones sold worldwide as of 2024. In early 2011, Apple initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung, who typically responded with countersuits. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the smartphone wars: extensive litigation and fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

Zi Corporation was a software company based in Calgary, Canada. The company was founded on 4 December 1987 as Cancom Ventures Inc, owning an Edmonton secretarial college and an industrial equipment rental business. On 30 August 1989 the name was changed to Multi-Corp Inc. In 1993, board member Michael Lobsinger took control of the company, became CEO, and turned the company towards the telecommunications industry, purchasing several privately held companies involved in the telecommunications businesses, and in November 1993, Multi-Corp entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with Eric Chappell for a stroke-based Chinese text entry system which they referred to as the Jiejing Licenses. A wholly owned subsidiary, Ziran Developments Inc, was formed to handle the Chinese text entry business.

References

  1. ↑ "SEC Form Vringo/ZTE Settlement for $21.5 million". www.sec.gov. SEC. December 7, 2015. Retrieved 2016-03-08.
  2. ↑ "Google ordered to pay as much as $1 billion to patent troll Vringo". VentureBeat. 2014-01-29. Retrieved 2017-05-22.
  3. ↑ "US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - I/P Engine Inc. v. AOL Inc., Google Inc" (PDF).
  4. ↑ "IP/Engine v Google, AOL et al - the most troubling patent case of 2014 - Blog - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business" . Retrieved 2017-05-22.
  5. ↑ "VRINGO WILL SEEK SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF FEDERAL CIRCUIT'S REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT AGAINST GOOGLE". finance.yahoo.com.
  6. ↑ "Vringo and ZTE go the distance: an infographic - Blog - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business". Archived from the original on 2017-08-08. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  7. ↑ Mullin, Joe (August 15, 2014). "After years of hype, patent troll Vringo demolished on appeal". Ars Technica.
  8. ↑ Jonathan Medved on CNBC's "Street Signs" NBC News. 14 September 2010.
  9. ↑ Sandler, Neal (27 August 2007). "Vringo Bets on Video Ringtones". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on February 15, 2013. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
  10. ↑ Ankeny, Jason. "Vringo raises $11 million in IPO" . Retrieved 15 January 2013.
  11. ↑ Austin, Scott (23 June 2010). "Vringo CEO Jon Medved Explains Improbably IPO". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
  12. ↑ Mason, JG. "Vringo gets IPO – got $11 million for video ringtones?" . Retrieved 15 January 2013.
  13. ↑ Salter, Chuck (August 2012). "Meet Vringo CTO Ken Lang, The Mystery Geek At The Center Of The Google Patent Fight". Fast Company. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  14. ↑ Ankeny, Jason. "Vringo CEO Jon Medved resigns following Innovate/Protect merger". Archived from the original on 2012-06-21. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
  15. ↑ Matusow, Scott. "Vringo: How Mark Cuban's Large Patent Hedge Bet Could Make A Bundle". Seeking Alpha. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  16. ↑ Liston, Ed (9 October 2012). "What Is Behind Vringo's Lawsuit Against ZTE?". Seeking Alpha. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  17. ↑ "Why Google Might Be Going to $0". 31 March 2012.
  18. ↑ Altucher, James (31 March 2012). "Why Google Might Be Going to $0". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  19. ↑ Tadena, Natalie (13 April 2012). "Heard of Vringo? It's Mark Cuban's Newest Toy". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  20. ↑ "Vringo Celebrates Merger with Innovate/Protect CEO Andrew Perlman Rings The Opening BellSM at the New York Stock Exchange". New York Stock Exchange. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  21. ↑ "Vringo and Nokia Execute Patent Purchase Agreement". www.businesswire.com. 9 August 2012. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  22. ↑ Rubin, Ben Fox. "Vringo Raises $45 Million in Stock Offering Ahead of Trial; Shares Down". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
  23. ↑ "VRINGO TO BEGIN TRADING ON NASDAQ". money.cnn.com. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  24. ↑ Mullin, Joe (October 16, 2012). "Investors seek billion-dollar payday as Vringo v. Google trial begins". Ars Technica . Condé Nast . Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  25. ↑ "I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., Google, IAC/InterActiveCorp-owned IAC Search & Media, Gannett Co Inc. and Target Corp" (PDF). US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  26. ↑ "Vringo Awarded $30 Million in Patent Suit". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  27. ↑ "Vringo Announces Verdict in I/P Engine Vs. AOL, Google et al". www.businesswire.com. 6 November 2012. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  28. ↑ "CLERK'S JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff, I/P Engine, Inc for I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings". Justia Dockets & Filings. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  29. ↑ "Google Loses Again in AdWords Patent Infringement Case". Search Engine Land. 23 January 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  30. ↑ "MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER for I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings". Justia Dockets & Filings. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  31. ↑ "Vringo Wins U.S. Patent Ruling on Google's Modified AdWords". The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 January 2014.
  32. ↑ "News Release | Vringo". ir.vringo.com. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  33. ↑ [ dead link ]
  34. ↑ "IP/Engine v Google, AOL et al - the most troubling patent case of 2014 - Blog - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business". www.iam-magazine.com. Archived from the original on 25 December 2014. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  35. ↑ "Search - Supreme Court of the United States". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  36. ↑ Wauters, Robin (9 August 2012). "Mobile tech firm Vringo to sell $31.2m worth of stock to buy over 500 Nokia patents for (at least) $22m". The Next Web. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  37. ↑ "SEC Form 8-K: Vringo (Berger) Letter to ZTE". www.sec.gov.
  38. ↑ "Vringo Response to ZTE DGCOMP Complaint". Scribd. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  39. ↑ "Apple Paying Nokia $715 Million Upfront To Settle Patent Dispute, Estimates Analyst". Business Insider. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  40. ↑ Whittaker, Zach. "Vringo ZTE Butt Heads in UK Court Over Patent Claims". ZDNet . Retrieved 8 October 2012.
  41. ↑ Balachander. "Vringo Files Another Patent Suit Against ZTE". iStockAnalyst. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  42. ↑ Balachander. "Court Finds Vringo Patent Valid and Infringed by ZTE" . Retrieved 26 December 2014.
  43. ↑ "Vringo Infrastructure Inc v ZTE (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 177". www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  44. ↑ "2014.06.23 Statement of Claim (as-Filed)". Scribd. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  45. ↑ "In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi: Vringo v. Xu Dejun".
  46. ↑ "In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi: Vringo v. Indiamart".
  47. ↑ "Casetext". casetext.com. Retrieved 2017-05-22.
  48. ↑ "2015.02.10 Teleconference With Judge Sleet (Indexed) | Lawsuit | Judge". Scribd. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  49. ↑ "Three King & Spalding attorneys seek to withdraw as counsel to ZTE in dispute with Vringo - The Patent Investor". thepatentinvestor.com. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  50. ↑ "2015.09.08 Motion for Sanctions". Scribd. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  51. ↑ "Ex-King & Spalding Associate Sues for Firing Over Airing Ethics Concern". www.law.com. Retrieved 2017-05-23.
  52. 1 2 "U.S. firm alleges China's government colluded with local competitor". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  53. ↑ "Chinese telecom firm ZTE probed for alleged sale of U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  54. ↑ "MEMORANDUM OPINION for Vringo, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings". Justia Dockets & Filings. Retrieved 2018-01-23.
  55. 1 2 "(UPDATE1) Vringo's allegation of manipulation by ZTE seen more likely to draw scrutiny from Justice Department than SEC - The Patent Investor". thepatentinvestor.com. Archived from the original on 2022-12-06. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  56. ↑ "Scribd". Scribd.
  57. ↑ "VN - 20150603 - 092141" – via soundcloud.com.
  58. ↑ Miller, Michael Martina, Matthew (September 15, 2014). "'Mr. Confession' and his boss drive China's antitrust crusade". Reuters– via www.reuters.com.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  59. ↑ "2015.07.15 Second Amended Complaint (File-Stamped) | Non Disclosure Agreement | Complaint". Scribd. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  60. ↑ Denyer, Simon; Nakashima, Ellen (September 13, 2015). "U.S. firm alleges China's government colluded with local competitor" – via www.washingtonpost.com.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.