Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ricky who wrote (4852)	12/9/2002 12:43:10 AM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

I think that ERICY is just trying to find a reason for the judge to overturn the jury decision. This part of patent litigation is most obscure, but I'm aware of 2 recent cases where the judge actually overturned the jury decision. In Ampex vs Mitsubishi (1997), Ampex won the jury decision, including a jury award of $8M, but the judge overturned the jury decision and ordered a new trial. Ampex and Mitsubishi settled 2 related cases for a nominal amount before going to trial again. In Odetics vs StorageTek (1999), Odetics won the jury decision, including a finding of willful infringement and a jury award of $71M, but the judge reversed the jury decision in favor of Storagetek! On appeal, however, the CAFC overturned the judge's decision to reverse the jury decision because the judge's *"component-by-component analysis ... finds no support in the law."* Odetics and Storagetek settled two related cases soon after with Storagetek paying Odetics something like $100M. The judge's decision on this and other post-trial motions are expected to come out 60-90 days after the jury decision or sometime during the ERICY vs IDCC trial which starts on 2/10/2003.