I have only read the first few pages of the Teva SCOTUS decision and some commentary, but if I understand the decision correctly, this is really big for WDDD. A lot of the fear surrounding PAE stocks like WDDD is due to the recent VRNG appellate court decisions. In that case, the appellate court overturned the lower court's decision on the obviousness of the patents (a finding of fact). They essentially changed the facts that were found in the case. Given that outcome, even if WDDD won their case, investors would have to brace for ATVI to appeal before WDDD got any money, adding a lot more time to the process.
With the Teva ruling from SCOTUS, that fear of the appellate court over turning a district court's ruling is diminished (not gone, but diminished).
From the SCOTUS ruling:
"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) states that a court of appeals “must not . . . set aside” a district court’s “[f]indings of fact” unless they are “clearly erroneous.” It sets out a “clear command,” [...] and “does not make exceptions or . . . exclude certain categories of factual findings” from the court of appeals’ obligation. And the function of an appeals court reviewing the findings of a “ ‘district court sitting without a jury . . . is not to decide factual issues de novo [i.e. 'afresh' or 'from the beginning'].’”
[...]
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370, neither created, nor argued for, such an exception. There, the Court held that the ultimate question of claim construction is for the judge, not the jury, id., at 372, but it did not thereby create an exception from the ordinary rule governing appellate review of factual matters.
[...]
The Markman Court also recognized that courts will sometimes have to resolve subsidiary factual disputes in patent construction; Rule 52 requires appellate courts to review such disputes under the “clearly erroneous” standard. Application of this standard is further supported by precedent and by practical considerations. Clear error review is “particularly” important in patent cases because a district court judge who has presided over, and listened to, the entire proceeding has a comparatively greater opportunity to gain the necessary “familiarity with specific scientific problems and principles,” Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U. S. 605, 610, than an appeals court judge who must read a written transcript or perhaps just those portions referenced by the parties."
thoughts?
John Gibson
fortuneir . com
