Loop, Brilliant. IDCC board monitor, take note.
It is a simple argument that delaying payments does not cause irreparable harm because the money can be repaid with interest, but it is simply wrong. Loop has done a great job of spelling out the irreparable harm that delay causes IDCC. This needs to be made clear to the judges so that they can see past the simple to the complicated truth. IDCC board monitor, please forward the italicized portion of this post to the appropriate parties at IDCC for consideration.
IDCC is a prime example of a company that truly does suffer irreparable harm as a result of infringement, but I have not seen a lawyer make the presentation in such a manner that is clear to a judge. Most show that the client is losing income and stop because that is what they understand. They talk in terms of royalty rates and sales in the industry, but fall short of painting the real picture. The real picture must show that time and present day loss of revenue does in fact produce harm and the loss is absolutely irreparable. It may be that royalty may be recovered down the road, but the value of the corporation cannot be recovered. I have yet to see a lawyer present a witness that can demonstrate the loss of market cap over a period of time of no recurring revenue versus the receipt of the money in a lump sum down the road. This is caused because the infringer is allowed to continue capturing market share without paying IDCC for the IPR being used and blocking market penetration from companies who have licenses with IDCC and would be paying IDCC for the market share being controlled by the infringer. Thus, the loss of recurring revenue over the period of infringement makes it impossible for IDCC to share in the multiples for evaluation by the market analysts causing a severe distortion in market cap which is a bell weather of company identity and the ability to have access to the credit lines available to companies who are receiving recurring growth in quarterly revenue during the infringement period. Once IDCC receives a large sum as replacement for the royalty owed over the time of infringement, the market analysts value this event wholly different from the recurring growth model and the difference in the two evaluations is lost forever which is the irreparable harm that must be demonstrated to the courts so they understand the harm being caused by the deep pocket infringer. There is an art to portraying damage models to the courts and it takes a little imagination which has been stifled by the time and money replacement rulings which were handed down by the courts who do not believe in the injunction. The injunction opponents view the use of an injunction as a death penalty and so long as a bully can pay the harmed party dollars down the road, they believe the injunction should not issue. The damage is much more than a simple dollar replacement plus interest. There are losses to market cap, ability to budget, ability to plan, ability to receive credit lines, ability to enjoy public recognition and a whole host of other items that are irreparable and cannot be recovered in a suit for infringement. The very idea that the legislature is even considering limiting damages for past royalty almost mandates that lawyers get more creative in painting the true damage picture being suffered by his client because of the actions of the wrongdoer.
Absolutely spot on. A company with signed contracts and recurring royalties (see QCOM) is viewed and valued in a much better way than a company that fights and gets paid in lump sums that are difficult to predict in amount and timing. Even if the overall revenues, including adjustments for interest, are the same, the value and prestige of the companies are vastly different. Also it makes the stock much more volatile, which further discounts its price in the market.
AI
