Replies to post #32653 on XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[postyle]

It's the most basic of legal doctrines: res judicata

See also: Collateral Estoppel

[flyersdh]

Its a guaranteed fact.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Doctrine+of+res+judicata

The U.S. legal system places a high value on allowing a party to litigate a civil lawsuit for money damages only once. U.S. courts employ the rule of res judicata to prevent a dissatisfied party from trying to litigate the issue a second time.

Res judicata will be applied to a pending lawsuit if several facts can be established by the party asserting the res judicata defense. First, the party must show that a final judgment on the merits of the case had been entered by a court having jurisdiction over the matter. This means that a final decision in the first lawsuit was based on the factual and legal disputes between the parties rather than a procedural defect, such as the failure to serve the defendant with legal process.

Once a court makes a final decision, it enters a final judgment in the case. The judgment recites pertinent data about the case, such as the names of the parties, the fact that a jury verdict was rendered, and the disposition made. The judgment is filed with the court administrator for that judicial jurisdiction.

The party asserting res judicata, having introduced a final judgment on the merits, must then show that the decision in the first lawsuit was conclusive as to the matters in the second suit. For example, assume that the plaintiff in the first lawsuit asserted that she was injured in an auto accident. She sues the driver of the other auto under a theory of Negligence. A jury returns a verdict that finds that the defendant was not negligent. The injured driver then files a second lawsuit alleging additional facts that would help her prove that the other driver was negligent. A court would dismiss the second lawsuit under res judicata because the second lawsuit is based on the same Cause of Action (negligence) and the same injury claim.

Under the companion rule of Collateral Estoppel, the plaintiff will not be allowed to file a second lawsuit for money damages using a different cause of action or claim. Under collateral estoppel, the parties are precluded from litigating a second lawsuit using a different cause of action based on any issue of fact common to both suits that had been litigated and determined in the first suit. For example, the plaintiff who lost her auto accident case based on a theory of negligence cannot proceed with a second lawsuit based on an allegation that the driver intentionally struck her auto, thus making it an intentional tort cause of action. A court would assert collateral estoppel because the plaintiff could have alleged an intentional tort cause of action in the original complaint.

The application of res judicata and collateral estoppel produces finality for the parties and promotes judicial economy. Parties know that when final judgment is entered and all appeals are exhausted, the case is over and the decision will be binding on all issues determined in the lawsuit.

[coolerheadsprevail]

Would you like to cite case law or is it just your opinion?

@xlt,

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum in the past both here and over on freeforums.

As others have pointed out, the doctrine of res judicata would apply.

But even without the legal mumbo jumbo aspect of it, common sense also tells us this could never happen. Let's go thru this for yet another time:

The case is already knee-deep in trial. If MSFT or anyone else acquires either the patents or buys out all of VRNG, they assume all assets/liabilities/contingencies "as is", including the status and conditions of this lawsuit.

As such, whether any resolution will come shortly after JJ rules on 822 or whether it will be dragged out for another 12-18 months via appeals, there will be only 3 possible outcomes:

(1)
GOOG will emerge victorious via an appellate ruling in their favor re: Invalidity or Non-Infringement, thereby rendering 420/664 impotent. MSFT is now the proud owner of two patents that are as useful as a limp noodle. Case closed.

(2)
The appellate court affirms the jury verdict and affirms the notion of a future RR. Regardless of what this RR or base is, this future royalty is in essence a court-brokered license (albeit a compulsory one) which provides GOOG the right to continue using 420/664. As such, MSFT would have no basis to sue GOOG again for these patents GOOG is now a legit licensee with full rights to the use of the patents.

(3)
GOOG settles. Again, any settlement would include a license for continued future use, so MSFT would have no legal basis to sue GOOG again, similar to (2) above. It is not a legal issue that requires precedent case law to understand -- it is fundamental contract law.


The only way MSFT could even try to do anything to GOOG would be to IMMEDIATELY (1) acquire the patents and convince VRNG to drop the entire suit ASAP, or (2) buyout all of VRNG and make the decision themselves to drop the entire suit ASAP.

After dropping the suit, file a brand new suit, this time alleging willfulness. Now MSFT needs to take a number and get in the back of the line again to get scheduled for another Markman hearing and then go thru the entire damn trial all over again.

Oh, and did I mention that by going this route, MSFT would be forfeiting the priceless and invaluable UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT that had already been won?

And one more thing: By the time all of this happens, we are already in the 2nd half of 2015 with only months before the patents expire. And this isn't even accounting for the time that GOOG will consume in inevitable appeals as well to easily drag this new suit out until 4/4/16 and beyond.