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.
So the first of 13 separate trials will be August 2020, and the remaining 12 are TBD?
I'm not saying Judge Andrew's won't consider it, but I would just be surprised if he did.
Commscope doesn't have to be taken into account by Judge Andrews. It has no bearing on the value of the patents. The value is what it is, regardless of whether the infringers absorb the cost or are indemnified by Arris. If Comm and Arris don't honor the agreements after the 13 settle, those who were indemnified have a separate case against Comm/Arris.
Since they are not a party to this litigation and they purchased Arris long after the indemnification agreements were signed, with full knowledge of the potential liability, I would be surprised if Andrews would consider a delay based on actions taken by Commscope.
1% is $3.7 billion. Treble damages for Comcast would be $11 billion, give or take a few hundred million. You need the modem for cable and internet.
Would that be the best birthday present or what?
But we could have a great summer if the trial was scheduled in April or May and it settled before then, no?
Comcast is subject to treble damages if it goes to trial. Though, unlike some others, I dont think negotiations will get serious until after the February 18 hearing.
You're right. I believe their valuation in the November hearing was between $5m and $10m. Probably most definitely not Billy's numbers.
I believe you still need an internet connection to connect the wireless router. You wouldn't get wifi in your home if you didnt have an internet connection. And the speed would still be determined by the router and the box.
I dont think they infringe directly, though, since you need service from one of the ISPs to stream.
I wonder if not knowing whether their indemnifier is making any progress with the SC is nerve wracking for the 13?
I believe portions of Quigley's testimony will not be allowed at trial, though I dont believe Andrew's has filed the order specifying which portions.
My bad. I was thinking that was the date of the trial scheduling conference. Ask Dilly if it's been posted. I know the 13 replied to Andrews' requests for precedents on their determination of valuation.
It was cancelled. We're waiting for the hearing on Chanbond's valuation expert and possibly trial scheduling, again, February 18.
It won't affect the value, but in September he was posting about how close they were and negotiations seemed to fall apart. And again in November.
Think about what you would do if you were one of the 13 or the attorney for the 13 looking at a huge payout (even though it's what they would have been paying all along anyhow) and you suddenly see people practically jumping for joy on a stock board. You would probably say screw them, let them wait, and walk away from the table.
Yeah, just PM people. We know they watch the board.
No, he's been pretty consistent. When the courts are quiet, he's active. If we get another Pacer delaying the hearing date, we won't hear from him for awhile.
Seems like every time you post a comment like that, we have another setback.
I think you can speak for all of us on that point.
Attorneys for Respondents
Noel J. Francisco
Counsel of Record
Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
202-514-2217
Party name: Andrei Iancu
Andrea Pacelli
Counsel of Record
King & Wood Mallesons LLP
500 5th Avenue, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10110
andrea.pacelli@us.kwm.com
212-319-4755
Party name: ChanBond, LLC
I wouldn't assume that, but the Solicitor General is listed as counsel for the respondent on the SC docket. I hope we find out soon.
Andrea Pacelli with KWM is listed as Counsel of Record for Respondent on the SC docket, right below the Solicitor General.
I think Saturday, January 18, 2020 is as good a day as any for that opinion to be posted.
Were you just reading my mind?
I think it just hasn't been uploaded yet. The decision will be uploaded to the SC docket.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-455.html
Commscope should have done it when they bought Arris for about $5 billion more than they were worth. They should have bought the patents in exchange for a release of claims and negotiated royalties.
Some of those companies don't owe anywhere near a billion.
Not much to do but wait, really.
I think the SCOTUS hearing on Arris's brief is January, no?
Yep. I didn't realize they filed an amended Q. I hadn't even read the 10Q. Been distracted.
OTC Markets still shows 500M, though it hasn't been updated since 12/2. Where do you see 3B?
It sounds like Andrew's has already made a decision on Quigley's testimony.
This is the expert for the 13, so it could be favorable for Chanbond. All depends on what is being stricken. We'll find out in the order. The summary reflects Chanbond's attorneys were not concerned if they didn't get a summary judgment on Quigley's testimony, as they think a jury will find in their favor anyhow.
I thought he already ruled on that. I wonder why he didn't include the order with the summary?
On another note, some interesting news in Reuters today regarding legislation on injunctions that could impact this case.
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1YO057?__twitter_impression=true
I believe each party has their own expert. I'm curious as to whose expert is at question. I need to dig through the filing s. Quigly's name came up during the recent hearing. I think she's an expert for the defense, and I thought her testimony was tossed by Andrews way back.
But that leaves 433 smaller companies and directTV and Dish who could expand their market share drastically with a small royalty to Chanbond if they are awarded an injunction against the 13.
Of those 450 cable providers, 13 are mentioned in the lawsuit, and 2 do not use docsis modems. That's a whole lot of competition for the 13, which is why an injunction isn't necessarily out of the realm of possibilities.
No Verizon doesn't use docsis. I don't believe AT&T does either.