Red, are you lurking out there? We are in need of your special expertise regarding the Gemstar/General Instruments confrontation. There was a recent arbitration ruling that awarded gmst compensatory damages, punitive damages, and legal fees. It seems like a clear cut victory for gmst, but GI's spin on it has created some doubt about the finality of gmst's victory and the strength of their ipr:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HORSHAM, Pa., Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- General Instrument Corporation GIC today announced that an American Arbitration Association panel released an interim decision in the breach of contract dispute between General Instrument and StarSight Telecast, Inc., a unit of Gemstar International Group, Ltd. GMST . Ruling with respect to General Instrument's analog set-top products only, the arbitrators found that GI had breached a 1992 license agreement and misappropriated certain StarSight trade secrets relating to electronic program guides. The arbitrators rejected StarSight's interpretation of its patents and also found that GI did not commercialize products that incorporate those patents. The panel further denied StarSight's request for an injunction.
The arbitrators found that StarSight is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. The amount of such damages will be finally determined by the arbitrators after further submissions are made by the parties later this month. General Instrument estimates that compensatory damages will be in the range of $25 to $36 million. An additional 50% of such amount will be added as punitive damages, plus attorneys fees and costs. General Instrument has not determined whether it will oppose confirmation of the damage award. In the event an award is ultimately confirmed by a court, GI would be able to satisfy the judgment without any material impact on its financial condition or future operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you'd care to comment on the statement, my areas of confusion are,
1. What does rejection of StarSight's "interpretation of its patents" mean? Does this weaken gmst's ipr going forward?
2. If GI did not "commercialize products that incorporate gmst patents", why are they being penalized?
3. How binding is an American Arbitration Association ruling? GI's press release implies they may choose to challenge the award in court.
Logic tells me that GI is a bad loser and just trying to save face, but my attempts to apply logic to legal issues in the past have not been very successful. How does this look to a patent attorney?
I hope your trip to S. California was profitable, and look forward to hoisting a beer with you the next time you visit the pretty part of the state <g>.
Frank |
