I noticed a post that excluded a possibility.. in re:every settlement includes a license...
Not necessarily....If the company that paid (or other) the settlement, does not use the patented IP from the settlement point on (or, is dissolved)....they could not be further sued...IMO.
Has this ever happened? In the case of PTSC, I do not know....but, it is a possibility
===========
quote:
" If the alleged infringer entered into a settlement without receiving a license as part of the deal, he could still, at least in theory, be sued thereafter because he would not be licensed for use of the patent"
&
"The point is that, for all cases involving a settlement at any juncture, every settlement will include a license and every license will be based on a settlement. The two simply cannot be separated, and most investors know this because it's a very simple, foundational thing. So, it should be immediately understood, even if not specifically stated, that in any PR announcing a license there has been a settlement, and that in any PR announcing a settlement there has been a license granted." |
