InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 438
Posts 45331
Boards Moderated 4
Alias Born 05/11/2008

Re: Daylas post# 4117

Thursday, 12/31/2020 7:25:46 AM

Thursday, December 31, 2020 7:25:46 AM

Post# of 22846
post from another board. interesting


jmcai273
Dec. 31st, 12:36 am

For context about timing I just went thru Centripetal v Cisco from earlier this year. Case was stayed in Virginia District Court while patent reexamination happened so parallels are there.

June 2019 - Motion to lift stay entered
Sept 11, 2019 - Hearing to Lift Stay
Sept 18, 2019 - Motion to Lift Stay GRANTED
October 10 2019 - Scheduling Conference Held (Pretrial and Trial Scheduled)
March 2020 - Pretrial Held
April 2020 - Bench Trial Scheduled and began May 5th, 2020
October 5 2020 - OPINION ORDERED

Settlement Conferences happened all along the way as well and no settlement was ever reached...although I am sure Cisco now wishes it did. Court found CISCO liable for $755million in damages and enhanced the damages by a factor of 2.5 for an award of $1.889 Billion.

They came up with the award damage based on a percentage factor called the apportionment factor. For each revenue stream that used Centripetals patent, they used a percentage of those total sales numbers to define what was owed. The products that had patents CISCO were infringing upon had $21BILLION in Revenue. This was only over the course of 3 years and this is the guide the judge used to deliver damages. So imagine 11 years now of infringing and take even a tiny percent of that times Google search ad revenue and you get a few shekels.

The only difference in our case is we still need to have the Markman hearing...but most of the Claim Construction briefing was completed in 2010 before the stay was granted... so only the actual hearing remains. This would add another 3 months I would say.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NLST News