The tempoary injunction Johnson had preventing Decn strips years ago...press release stated that DECN was going to recoup lost sales in the lawsuit that was settled. Decn received a healthy amount as a settlement.
That's exacly my point:
The lawsuit where DECN were prevented from selling their strips is already SETTLED from the previous litigation. That was the PREVIOUS JnJ vs DECN case. Any Compensation for loss of sales forms part fo that settlement.
Therefore DECN are not going to get any damages relating to losing future sales from the PRESENT litigation - since JnJ is not preventing DECN from selling. Nor is DECN presenting JnJ from selling.
In the PRESENT litigation (Nevada) however, DECN is trying to sequester a portion of the proceeds from historical sales BY JnJ because of JnJs alleged infringement (... and good luck with that! Not exactly going to be a walk in the park!).
Whatever the outcome, the future price of strips (whether JnJs or DECNs) is neither here nor there w.r.t. calculating any settlement in this present Nevada litigation.
All of the events pertaining to the alleged infringement are now historical.
Consequently, while you can argue that the 'closed loop system' approval news may affect the price of test strips generally in the future, it can have no bearing on the price of test strips in the past. So there won't be any potemntial impact of this news on the PRESENT litigation.
So the initial contention made i.e. that this news could potentially mean a bigger settlement in the Nevada case, is erroneous.
