XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[farmerannie]

My first thought was that it seems unrealistic to ask for, or expect, discussion of "actual" damages when most damages (apart from fees & costs) are thus far hypothetical. How can anyone prove actual damages from hypothetical figures? I don't understand the legal aspects on that one.

I'll just assume (perhaps wrongly so) that there needs to be a baseline of "presumed licensing income" (had licensing occurred) against the figures Z stated it's willing to pay for licensing the patents. So "damages" in that sense would be the figures on V's initial term sheet compared to ZTE's publicly stated offer times the number of items in question. Let's see: isn't that $2.50/phone minus Z's offer of $0.0002/phone? Don't know if anyone can speak clearly on this matter since no FRAND has been formally declared yet.

Let's not forget, it's Z that has been strategically obfuscating records and figures from their own past negotiations with other companies. Since those figures remain withheld and cannot be proffered as a baseline for damage discussions, the only baseline I know is V's term sheet, which was largely based on worldwide industry standards to begin with. If there's a meaningful difference between worldwide FRAND and ZTE's FRAND, It appears that Z has done a bang-up job of concealing it.

How all this factors into projected future damages against other defendants is unknown and discussion here is premature, so I can't go there; there are too many other knowledgeable minds out there who would be much more accurate than I.

JJS is likely right and I'm wrong, but it's starting to feel like this case is wandering through back alleys that lead nowhere but at a starting point. Can anyone say, "Mobius Strip?"