Vringo (VRNG) Lower as Dr. Becker Testimony on Disney/Google Agreement Stricken from Record
Tweet Send to a Friend
Up)According to the wording, jurors were asked to drop Dr. Becker's testimony made Tuesday over the Disney/Google Agreement in cross examination, because the technology is not relevant to what Google is being sued for. It also indicates Google may not have provided full disclosure over certain financial docs.
Today, the jury trial continued at 10AM but will close from 2:30PM-3:15PM for propriety testimony.
Vringo is 2.2 percent lower to $3.69, but off the lows of the session of $3.43.
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 740-1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 16089
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
I/P ENGINE, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
)
AOL, INC. et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED CURATIVE INSTRUCTIONS
1. Instruction Regarding The Disney-Google Agreement Members of the jury, yesterday you heard counsel for Defendants ask Dr. Becker a number of questions during cross-examination regarding a patent license agreement between Disney and Google. Defendants were trying to establish that the technology of the Disney/Google Agreement is comparable to the technology of the patents-in-suit that I/P Engine is asserting against Google and the other defendants. The Court has ruled that the technology of the Disney-Google Agreement is not comparable to the technology of the patents-in-suit. As a result, the Court instructed you to disregard all testimony regarding the Disney-Google Agreement. You may not consider that agreement, or the amount of that agreement, for any purpose, including trying to determine what the appropriate royalty should be in this case. I want to emphasize that my instruction to you on this matter is in no way a reflection that Dr. Becker did anything improper. During his direct examination, Dr. Becker testified that he was not relying on the Disney-Google agreement because there is no evidence that the Disney technology is relevant to any issue in this case the questions of Defense counsel regarding the Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 740-1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 160891 Disney-Google agreement were improper. The Court has therefore ruled that any evidence regarding the Disney technology is improper and irrelevant.
2. Instruction Regarding Discovery of Google's Financial Information You also heard counsel for Defendants ask Dr. Becker questions regarding whether he had asked counsel for I/P Engine for further documents or information to support his opinions regarding his apportionment, or whether there was a final version of PX 64, the Revenue Force document. After reviewing the record on this matter, the Court has found that counsel for I/P Engine had requested those documents and information from Google, but that Google did not produce to I/P Engine a final version of the Revenue Force document, PX 64, or any documents providing the numerical support for the slides on page 38 of that document. I instruct you that you may conclude, based upon the cross-examination questions asked of Dr. Becker by Defendants' counsel, that Google had additional documents and information that, had they been produced, would have provided further support to Dr. Becker's opinions regarding his apportionment.
Join StreetInsider.com FREE and get immediately alerted when news breaks on your stocks and other market items - JOIN NOW
*NEW - Download StreetInsider's FREE iPhone and iPad App - Click Here
You May Also Be Interested In
- Cleantech Solutions (CLNT) Becomes Certified Supplier to Sinopec and CPNC
- UPDATE: Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) Jury Reaches Positive Verdict in Robot Case; Shares Rise
- Tesla (TSLA) Pushes Back Into Positive Territory on DOE Loan Repayment
Create E-mail Alert Related Categories
Corporate News, Momentum MoversComments View All Comments
title
no author, speaks volumes to the credibility of this site
Perhaps you didn't really read
Funny how some words can be taken out of context. The court document you posted are proposed jury instructions as written by Vringo, the plaintiff. I don't believe that they have been ruled on yet.
In any case, streetinsider.com has lost street credibility in my view.
Title of article MISLEADING
The facts in the body of your article make clear that GOOGLE counsel did wrong, not VRNG. This has nothing to do with price retracement of the stock.
I want a comment from the author
Author, either acknowledge these claims or refute them!
Sign up for StreetInsider Free!
Receive full access to all new and archived articles, unlimited portfolio tracking, e-mail alerts, custom newswires and RSS feeds - and more!
Erroneous
Matthew on Oct 24, 2012 10:55 PMMark as Spam | Reply to this comment
Idiot posting.