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.
There are scads of attorneys out there who couldn't pass a fifth grade math test or, obviously, a third grade spelling test as evidenced on this board. You know you can just buy a degree, basically, right? Or you could've just bought stock in Chanbond and not have to worry about the proper spelling of "but" or "not" or forming a coherent sentence.
And by the way, dish network and direct tv require docsis 3.0 modems. All cable and internet providers are infringing.
They would be liable "after" notification of infringement, which could come in the form of a simple letter or a subpoena. I suspect the notification could come in the form of a lawsuit filed against one or more of their contemporaries, as court records are public. Ignorance is not a defense.
Attorneys for the plaintiff always work on contingency in these types of cases. It generally pays better. If they don't think a case has enough value or isn't strong enough, they won't take the case.
So far, the courts have ruled in favor of the law. Every one of the behemoths being sued has at least one competitor in every market in which they do business. In large urban areas, they may have several competitors not mentioned in this suit, almost all of whom use the tech and may find it advantageous to side with Chanbond.
I disagree. First, I think the win is highly likely (not sure if you were referring to the win or the injunction there). And second, an injunction would not shut the internet down, as it would only impact the litigants in this particular case. Remember, the 13 have competitors not mentioned in this suit who may be all too happy to pay Chanbond royalties to expand their market share and avoid being sued themselves. For example, there are two providers in my area, one of which is being sued. Their competitor, who is using the same tech, but not mentioned may be happy to have that business.
I recall Commscope mentioned they may file their own suit, but I believe your right. There is no way they could not have known about this litigation, or Arris's indemnification agreements (it was noted in their financials) and their negligence in filing in a timely manner (all a matter 9f public record). So Commscope has no recourse at this point.
My bad. SWEET. Good riddance, Arris
The brief filed today was from the respondent, Chanbond.
I don't think the justices have decided whether or not to hear Arris yet.
RPX was denied because they didn't suffer an injury in fact, not due to being time barred.
I haven't reviewed the pharma patent cases, but there is much debate in Congress right now regarding the price of pharmaceuticals. Unlike with ISP providers, taxpayers fund research for pharmaceuticals and pick up the tab for patients on medicare and other state and federal programs. So I can see how SCOTUS may feel compelled to hear drug payment appeals.
I think the problem here is Chanbond offered to sell the house, comcast said no, then pulled the U haul up and moved in.
I think the 13 are grasping at straws on whether or not their bixes are infringing. Seems to me the only issue at hand at this point is valuation.
These were cases identified by defendants?
Arris did file in PTAB. They were time barred because they filed 5 months after the deadline, which was about 17 months after they were notified and agreed to indemnify. Appeals court dismissed their case after USPTO filed.
Especially since the USPTO intervened on behalf of PTAB due to lack of jurisdiction.
I think ZW said they addressed some Daubert matters at the meeting last week. Generally, Daubert motions are addressed at the trial scheduling conference. If not resolved then, any issues remaining will likely be addressed at the pre-trial conference.
There may be a hearing between the trial scheduling conference end of January and the trial. Not sure what they would need to discuss at this point, though I wouldn't be surprised if counsel for the defense has something else up her sleeve. We should see a Pacer, anytime between now and trial date, either notifying the court that they were unable to reach a settlement or requesting a stay because they reached a settlement. I think that's about all that is left. We're in the final stretch.
Jury awards can also be overturned on appeal.
Yeah, I've been thinking about that for months. But I don't honestly see how an award could get overturned in this case without glaringly obvious corruption. Chanbond has 2 solid patents.
Seems to me they're just playing hardball. This feels like just another flip of the bird, to the judge as well as Chanbond. The 13 ask for summary judgment and Andrews denies. They throw out a ridiculously low valuation and Andrews asks for precedents. So they send a message to the court and to Chanbond fanning their arrogance like peacocks with the assumption that the court of appeals will overturn any award if they lose at trial.
The typical jury award is about 1% of revenues during the infringement period. Treble damages if willful infringement can be proven. Comcast is the only company that will being pay treble damages. However, I think the numbers at 1% just for those publicly traded providers comes in around $11 - $12 billion.
I think TonyJoe is talking about a dividend payment as opposed to buyout.
All three were cases where plaintiff's won at trial but had the verdict overturned on Appeals. Jennifer Ting sending Chanbond a message -- they are planning to go to trial and appeal if they lose? Other than that, it doesn't seem the filing serves much of a purpose. None of the cases cited seemed to be nearly as strong as Chanbond's.
Thank you, Dilly. I thought ZW said the judge asked them to find a case or cases supporting their valuation theory -- the idea that the inventors were willing willing to accept less than $10M 8 years ago, so that's what the patents are worth now? The first case listed is a case that was overturned because the appeals court found the patents to be too broad.
Honestly, I'm hoping they come to their senses before trial, too. Hope for the best. Plan for the worst.
The 13 will have 3 months after trial to file appeals. It could be 6 months after appealing before a hearing, then up to 6 months after appeal hearings for a decision.
You really think it will be that long after the trial scheduling conference in January?
Me too.
I swear I remember expert testimony from quigly awhile back. I thought it was tossed by Andrews. I'll dig through Pacer later.
Sheesh, buy mine at $3 a share or spill the beans already!
GB, the patents were set to expire recently, but Chanbond filed for extensions on all. I believe the extension is for 10 years, but don't quote me. You can search the patents on the USPTO website. Like, the court info, it's all a matter of public record.
Well, I guess it all depends on the amount. If the loss is significant enough, it doesnt matter what they call it.
That would constitute fraud. There really is no "hiding" losses. It has to be reflected on the balance sheet.
Probably need a settlement closer to $5 billion payout if you consider attorney fees and costs.
Publicly traded companies have to report the loss on their balance sheets anyhow. All of the stakeholders in privately held companies will be aware as well.
I'm not sure an NDA would be advantageous to the defendants in this case. An NDA is generally requested when there is potential for additional lawsuits from other parties who may have been harmed. Wouldn't really apply in this case. Shareholders from the 13 will find out about any settlement agreement anyhow, so the NDA wouldn't have any effect there.
The stock is revoked.
I think I got the same one
Sorry. I'm just frustrated with the defense's bs. Got a nasty flu bug right now, too.