Here you go mschere, you like some of this less than fresh stuff. Read the whole thing and I'll put a twist in it for you to work with.
On March 29, 1995, the trial ended with the jury's verdict that ITC's patent claims at issue in the case are not infringed by Motorola and are not valid. The Company intends to appeal the jury verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit and believes that there are substantial grounds for reversal of the jury's verdict.
While the adverse verdict in the case should not affect the
Company's current alliance with Siemens A.G., its ongoing B-CDMA development
efforts, its ability to market and sell the UltraPhone(R) system worldwide
or the obligation of licensors to pay non-refundable advances or paid-up
license fees under ITC's existing patent license agreements, the Company
believes that if the verdict is not reversed through the appeals process,
the verdict may adversely affect the Company's efforts to generate further
revenue and cash flow from ITC's patent portfolio and may impair generally the
Company's ability to raise additional funds for general corporate purposes.
The outcome of the jury trial may also temporarily or permanently adversely
affect ITC's pending U.S. litigation against Ericsson and its ability to
realize running royalties under certain of its license agreements.
The case did not address the validity or infringement of other patent claims in the four patents at issue in the jury trial or any patent claims in any of ITC's 51 other U.S. patents relating to Time Division Multiple Access ("TDMA") and Broadband-Code Division Multiple Access ("B-CDMA") technologies, none of which were the subject of the case. The validity and infringement of ITC's patents in 33 foreign countries, mostly relating to TDMA, were likewise not addressed in the case.
Ok Mschere, here we got something to work with. How about the money from the OTHER 33 countries where the I/P was sold. You see, one word for you, Billions. And the best part is it's allready been sold.
The company clearly states " substantial grounds for reversal" Now not in this country any more but we have "substantial grounds" thats got to worth something in those 33 other countries we can go sue in. Now I know where your coming from. I know what your thinking ,lets open it all back up and go for retrial on the patents that weren't covered, that will catch them off guard.
" The validity and infringement of ITC's patents in 33 foreign countries, mostly relating to TDMA, were likewise not addressed in the case"
As a side note
Question: Easter bunny, male of female?
AI
