uf: i want to see if i can somehow get a copy of the ruling in the gmst/gi matter, but let me at least answer part of your questions.
first, your last question: "how binding is an AAA ruling?"
here's an unusual answer from a lawyer: it depends. seriously though, the extent to which the AAA ruling is binding depends on what the license agmt said. it might well have said that all disputes will be subject to binding arbitration and that, if push came to shove, the winning party cd go to court to enforce the judgment. the latter is almost certainly in the applicable paragraph in the gmst/gi license. however, some licenses expressly exclude ip issues from the arb'n dispute process, altho, based on the press release, i'm fairly certain that was not the case here. at any rate, without looking at the license/ruling, it sounds like there's a judgment which is enforceable.
in a partial answer to question 2: "if gi didn't commercialize products that incorporated gmst patents, why is gi being penalized?",
the holder of a patent can prevent others from making, using, and/or selling anything that wd infringe a claim(s) of the patent. even if gi didn't "sell" products that infringed, it cd have "used" products that infringed. however, there may be another more likely reason for infringement and/or the adverse judgment (at least from gi's point of view), i.e., the press release says gi misappropriated "trade secrets." that's certainly actionable and, depending on the circumstances, subject to damages, even punitive damages, altho i must say that conduct usually has to be fairly egregious for punitives to be warranted.
i can't know at this point what's meant by "the arbs rejected gmst's interpretation of its patents." presumably gmst was arguing for a certain interpretation of one of more of its claims in one or more patents, but i can't tell without access to the ruling, which may very well be confidential now and forever. at any rate i'd better do some research before i pontificate further.
btw, remember i'm not a patent lawyer per se (altho some of my colleagues are). i'm just a technology lawyer with a concentration on licensing and other deals, fully aware of the fact that 99% of the lawyers out there give the rest of us a bad name.
the deal in s. calif. hasn't closed yet, perhaps it will later this week. but i hope i get the chance to clink glasses soon in any event.
best, red jinn |
