InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Rainmaker80

04/26/16 2:46 PM

#21396 RE: Luckyus #21395

I am not familiar with the cases but the biggest issue for us at this stage is not damages.

What matters at this stage is getting to trial and past the PTAB, so in my view, cases like Cuozzo which are demonstrating major issues at that administrative agency are of primary importance.

Should SCOTUS address the issues at the PTAB via Cuozzo, it 'could' help put pressure on that group to start playing 'fair', which to date they clearly have not been. To me it is plainly obvious that group is simply what big tech have purchased from their political contributions and lobbying. They wrote the AIA, their lawyers codifed the ability to steal and make it hard for patent owners to defend their property, and the PTAB is their executioner.

Until we are able to get through the PTAB, damages are moot!
icon url

nicklaus1

04/26/16 4:30 PM

#21397 RE: Luckyus #21395

First off, one has to realize that at atvi sat down initially with kdrin and negotiated cause the knew of wddd's patents. This makes their infringement willfull and this is on record.

The cafc has ruled very inconsistently about treble damages, not only regarding willfulness, but just enhanced damages in general. When are they appropriate and when are they not. The cafc has a very small appetite for huge jury verdicts and increased damages and therefore scotus has decided to combine these two cases and has heard them. The decision is due any day. I don't know if scotus will just seek to clarify when increased damages should be applied and by how much or if they'll really come down on the side of the winner in the case. At the very least I think there will be a much more clear, less subjective picture set by scotus.

With a winning verdict and obvious willfulness on atvi's part it has to be a ruling they look closely at if they are staring a potential trial in the face. It also is a factor that will be taken into account for any premature settlement.

It goes w/o saying this is putting the cart before the horse, but it's a relevant piece of the investing thesis here.