This comes from a poster on the RB board:
By: clawmann
30 Jun 2005, 05:49 AM EDT
Msg. 66922 of 66924
(This msg. is a reply to 66910 by wando61624.)
Jump to msg. #
There is quite a bit of locker-room lawyering going on on this board.
First, it is possible in a settlement agreement for the plaintiff and the defendant to agree to submit to the court a joint motion to dismiss that attaches the settlement agreement. Usually, such a motion to dismiss requests the court to dismiss the suit "without prejudice," meaning that the plaintiff retains the right to re-file the suit if the defendant breaches (fails to live up to his end of) the settlement agreement.
In addition, a breach of the settlement agreement by the defendant would also - unless the agreement provides otherwise - give rise to an independent cause of action against the defendant for breach of contract.
Because courts are very interested in encouraging settlement agreements, these types of joint motions are almost always a slam dunk.
My guess is that this is what is going on in the NEOM-Virgin suit.
The most important thing to remember is that a major player settled a lawsuit brought by a very small IP firm.
That is big news. A major player does not settle with a small firm unless the major player has determined that there is substantial merit to the small firm's complaint. Why? Because if the major player shows that it is ready to enter into a settlement agreement with every Tom, Dick and Harry that sues it, the major player knows that it will actually attract a lot of frivolous lawsuits from jerks who are just trying to extract a settlement agreement.
In light of this, we have to treat yesterday's news as extremely favorable for NEOM, whatever the specific terms of the settlement agreement.
Also, in the IP world, when an IP firm is seeking to enforce its patents in court against a number of infringers (i.e. it has several suits going on at once), it is not unheard of for the IP firm to seek to settle at least one of the lawsuits, preferably one with "high visibility," on terms that validiate its IP. Such a settlement agreement then has a knock-on effect on the remaining lawsuits. One positive effect is that it allows the small IP firm to focus more legal firepower on the remaining lawsuits. This, together with the increase in the apparent legitimacy of its IP, often causes the defendants in the other suits to also seek settlements. But - because the IP firm's hand has been strengthened by the first settlement agreement - it is now in a position to extract far more favorable terms from the remaining defendants.
Furthermore, the first settlement agreement, which validates the IP firm's patents and signals its readiness to enforce them, has the salutary effect of discouraging others from violating its patents. This means that it helps to bring more potential licenseees to the table.
All-in-all, this is a big victory for NEOM. Its primary asset is its IP. It cannot generate revenue without it. And it has now successfully defended that asset. That is the major point here.
Anyone who thinks that the effect of this development can only be measured by the specific level of fees that it requires Virgin to pay are missing the big picture.
AI
