Thoughts on Estoppel by Floridahockeyman on the FOOL
As I mentioned in a previous post, an estoppel by silence does not exist if the party asserting the estoppel had access to the relevant facts.
Although the following cases which stand for this proposition arose in Florida, in my experience these cases are representative of the federal law in this area:
1. Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Naples, 614 So. 2d 1198, 1200 (Fla. 5 DCA 1993);
2. Pelican Island Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Murphy, 554 So. 2d 1179, 1182 (Fla. 2 DCA 1989);
3. Brickell Bay Club Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Hernstadt, 512 So. 2d 994, 997 (Fla. 3 DCA 1987).
My bottom line, FWIW: the facts in the cases pending will likely show IMHO that all of the plaintiff Dramarai regularly inspected foreign patents grants in this area as part of their ordinary course of business. This alone would likely deep-six the "estoppel by silence" claim.
Moreover, it is critical to recall RMBS' contention that the JEDEC disclosure rules were pervasively and publicly ignored by members of the JEDEC. If proven this alone would likely defeat the JEDEC defense since REASONABLE RELIANCE upon the disclosure rules could not be proven (i.e., it is not reasonable for anyone to rely upon a disclosure rule which is pervasively ignored by the membership). |
