Vringo Announces Verdict In I/P Engine Vs. AOL, Google Et Al.

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.

If you liked this article you might like

8 Stocks Under $10 Making Big Moves Higher

Insider Trading Alert - ALGN, VRNG And FSIC Traded By Insiders

Insider Trading Alert - CPTA, VRNG And FMNB Traded By Insiders

Vringo (VRNG) Downgraded From Hold to Sell

Why Vringo (VRNG) Stock Is Gaining Today