To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (2705 ) 10/21/2000 10:58:13 PM From: DanZ Read Replies (2) | Respond to The Quigley lawsuit was discussed here back in March and April. The bottom line is that Quigley's motion for temporary injunction was denied in April, which means that Zicam will never be pulled from the shelf as a result of the lawsuit. Quigley's patent expires in less than two years, and if the case isn't settled out of court, Quigley's patent will have expired by the time the case is settled in court. Quigley has a negligible chance of winning their case, and even if they do, damages would not be material because their sales fell off a cliff well before Zicam came on the market. Compensatory damages in infringement cases are generally limited to the greater of a fair royalty or actual damages caused by lost sales. Since Quigley won't be able to show that they were harmed by Zicam, damages would most likely be limited to a fair royalty, or 5% of sales. If you talk to lawyers, read Quigley's patent, read statements from George Eby, read various scientific literature related to this case, read the judge's ruling in the motion for summary judgement and motion for temporary injunction hearings with an open mind, you should conclude that Quigley has a negligible chance of prevailing in this case. I have done all that; you obviously haven't. The only thing you did was post a link to an old press release.
