Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
In patent litigation, yes.
Chanbond needs a win at trial to strengthen their position going forward if they plan to take on the manufacturers and international providers.
I think we definitely see a trial. Companies aren't just going to hand out money to anyone who asks, basically. And we've known for almost 2 years that valuation is where they're hung up -.28 to 1.06 is such a broad range, and I'm sure the cable companies don't want to pay .28. Comcast thought the patents should be free. I think they'll rely on a jury to set the value. Of course, they'll attempt as much influence over the jury as possible.
He's going to struggle no less with the evidence than current and previous lawyers for the 13. The patents have held up. There's no dispute regarding the patents or infringement at this point. I think he was brought in to make sure any jury award is not "excessive."
I'm not sure that's why he was hired. He's "known for connecting with juries." I think the 13 realize the challenge they're facing with 12 of their price-gouged customers sympathizing with their defense of the stolen tech they're over charging for.
I think we're in for a long haul. I don't see any settlements either, before trial or after. I see endless appeals in our future. I would love to be wrong.
Seems the 13 are not terribly confident they will win at trial. They know it's going to be extremely difficult to sway a jury in their favor.
Seems like a few of the 13 will spend more on attorney fees than it would have cost them to settle.
Sheesh. The award in that case was reduced from $1.5b to $23m.
Sounds like the 13 plan on going to trial.
So we crush them.
Again, we dont know what was in the indemnification agreements or who was indemnified. Might not be in some of the 13's best interest to settle. Could be they have to lose at trial to recover damages and costs. And for some of the smaller providers, Comm may very well be able to afford the risk at the lower end of the valuations.
Yes, an appeal can be denied. Or dismissed before the hearing, as with Arris's appeal.
Trust me, I wish I were a few years younger, too. I posted on here a long time ago, one of the first things I'm gonna do is buy myself a hoveround. Lol
They have 3 months after a verdict to appeal. You can bet they'll take advantage of that 3 months. Then it has to be reviewed. If the appeals court agrees to hear the case, it could be another 3 to 6 months before it's heard. Then the judges have 3 months to file a decision.
It's likely we won't know the outcome until after Labor Day if trial is scheduled to continue into the week of August 24. I would guess mid September.
You know, it seems to me the additional revenue received by the ISP providers from streaming services should also be considered in settlement negotiations or award calculations at trial. Could be Chanbond and Teece have already considered the additional revenue stream.
Chanbond initially filed 13 separate lawsuits and subsequently asked that they be consolidated. I would have to go back through each of those initial filings, but I'm sure the lawyers didn't forget to include the contingency fee in those initial filings.
I remember it came up in reschedules a few times. I think that was the plan: plaintiffs and defendants file all of their motions after discovery, and the judge has one hearing to address all of the evidence. I'm sure that would be ideal from the judge's perspective. But it didn't work out that way.
They don't have to have a special hearing. Daubert is a standard that applies to all testimony and evidence. The judge can assess evidence and testimony based on motions by defense or plaintiff and rule outside of a formal hearing. However, the hearing last week and the hearing in November, regarding valuation expert testimony, were essentially Daubert hearings.
Chanbond asked for costs and fees, so add about 40% to the minimum, or about $2.1b.
They probably could have paid about half that much to buy the patents.
I wouldn't underestimate the arrogance of any of the providers or their lawyers.
I recall seeing it posted in their quarterly report right after they acquired Arris.
Well, I hope Judge Andrews was specific about the year when he asked for dates after Labor Day in September.
This is why I think they'll go to trial, then appeal. Why pay now if you can out it off?
I wonder why they scheduled the first one so far out? Six months seems excessive, since discovery is all wrapped up.
85% of 13 is 11. I would venture to guess we see a trial first before any settlements.
Zomby did say "minimum." I think that .28 or sub per month plus attorney fees and costs, would be minimum for settlement. In other words, that's where we start the negotiations. If they go to trial, who's to day Chanbond can't ask for and receive the full markup from a jury.
Add Comcast and Time Warner to the 5 mentioned, and damages are still roughly over $700m at .28 per customer
Comcast might anyhow, since they have the opportunity, but they'll just end up paying more if they do.
Thank you Magnus.
I'm not sure what he meant. We'll find who's up first soon enough. Before trial at least, since its 6 months away.
It's possible we get both, trial verdict and settlement, with unconsolidation.
Hopefully, we get a transcript of this hearing.
The 13 requested separate trials last fall. Apparently judge Andrews granted that request today.
I hope you're right. But after 3 years of haggling, they don't seem any closer to closing the gap in valuation.
I'm sure it crosses Carter's mind a few times. We did, however, save an enormous amount of time during the discovery process with the consolidation.
And the defense has to spend 13 times as much in costs and fees, or more. I'm not sure the 13 would have won on appeal, even in separate appeals, if it had remained consolidated given that they had all agreed and spent 3 years acting as a consolidated party. But I'm sure judge Andrews won't get bored. The 13 will all need their own attorneys, who will need to be brought up to speed. Expect delays while the new attorneys are familiarizing themselves with their respective cases and introducing new evidence that their clients were not able to bring to the table because they were disadvantaged, etc.
The only identifiable issue that might cause Chanbond to lose on appeal to date. Anything can come up in any of the 13 trials. But they really dont need a specific issue to appeal a verdict. They can always appeal. They will have 3 months after a verdict, then there's the wait to see if it will be heard. Then wait for an appeal date. Then another month or two or three for the actual hearing. Then up to 90 days for a decision. Then requests for en banc reviews, if the 13 are so inclined to drag it out a bit longer. I think AJ said it best. They'll ride it until the wheels fall off.
Post 76992.
They're not going to settle. Why would they? We can look forward to 13 separate trials well into 2021, followed by 13 separate appeals for a year and a half, two years thereafter. Why would they settle now?