Replies to post #15300 on Cdex, Inc. (fka CDEX)

[Xenophon]

"Diddy... ..a Fixed Royalty Fee doesn't seem like they quite got the Bull by the Horns .. to me"

Why is that? A fixed royalty simply means you pay a fixed amount of cash or other value per the amount sold. Say, a fixed amount per unit sold based from product sales. Typically, there are also minimum royalties due also, in case sales don't materialize sufficiently - but this is not always the case. I think you are very confused again.

"Does being "fully licensed under" ASD's patent mean that our patent is strengthend against infringment claims of future other companies patents...if they say we infringed on them at a later date?"

Nope, not relevant at all. It means that CDEx required and took a license to ASD's patent and will pay royalties to ASD. There was no CDEx patent involved in the litigation nor in the settlement. There were no third party patents involved either, and the settlement agreement does not license any patents other than the ASD patent(s) - i.e., no third party patent licenses that ASD may have are transferred or sublicensed to CDEx in the settlement agreeement. CDEx remains exposed to infringement claims brought by third parties (e.g., Sandia) unless it separately licenses any and all third party patents that Valimed may infringe.

"That ASD's Patent will be Strengthed because of our UV Patent we will be holding?"

How so? The fact that a third party has taken a license to a patent is not a determinant in validity. If CDEx and ASD had litigated the ASD patent(s) to a final judgment upholding the validity of the patent against the specific invalidity defenses asserted by CDEx, then the ASD patent would have been strengthened, but only as to those specific invalidity defenses asserted by CDEx. The fact that CDEx was forced to take a license before the case was even in discovery phase does not affect any subsequent third party litigation or the validity or invalidity of ASD's patent(s) - it is the same as before ASD sued CDEx - the settlement agreement changed nothing other than CDEx now has to pay ASD royalties for the license to the ASD patent(s).

"I know it isn't cross licensing.."

That's right, it is NOT. It is a straight license - with CDEx having been forced to take a NON-EXCLUSIVE, FIELD-LIMITED license (for liquids only!) and pay royalties on Valimed sales to ASD. Gosh, it's really so simple that even a novice should be able to understand that. ASD may license any number of OTHER PARTIES to non-exclusive licenses also - and may practice the invention themselves (which they do).