Member Info for Newuncle

Moves quick with buys this one.

Fair point, I see you have a stalker elsewhere who reports on your posts and hangs on every word you say.

Bit of movement

In that case why are they so poorly rated in their MCAP valuation?

I'm guessing last results numbers didn't go down well at all then.

MCAP of just £2m....wouldn't take much to move the SP.

You would think we had bad news already judging by our nervous sellers today.

Guess they can't wait.......doubt we will see any updates today from the court or from CPX.

Just 3 buys and MMs moving with each one.

Gone blue on just 2 buy trades so far.

Really cannot understand why more are not buying here?

Patent trials tend to follow a familiar pattern: Plaintiff argues infringement of patent claims; defendant argues the claims are not infringed and, even if they were, they are invalid. Defendants typically raise both arguments because invalidity is a defense to infringement, the conventional way of thinking being that two defenses are better than one. But not so fast. As a trial team for Google recently proved, under the right circumstances, dropping invalidity might not only be beneficial for streamlining trial presentation and simplifying issues for the jury, but may just be the defendant’s ticket to a clear-cut victory. Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00090 (E.D. Tex.) (Judge Gilstrap) (Google winning jury verdict of non-infringement after dropping all invalidity arguments); see also December 2020 Business Litigation Report (detailing the trial).

Indeed, the PMC v. Google trial stands as compelling evidence that there are situations where it could be strategically advantageous to forego invalidity altogether. In this article, we discuss reasons why a defendant may want to buck the conventional wisdom and not pursue invalidity at a jury trial. This is clearly not a decision to be made lightly, as it can have profound consequences on the outcome of a case—including giving up the chance to invalidate the asserted patent or patents for good. The pros and cons of this approach thus should be weighed carefully based on the specific facts of the case.

Reasons Why One Might Consider Dropping Invalidity

So why might you consider dropping your invalidity defense at trial? To start with, both sides are nearly always under incredible time constraints. While patent trials typically last a week or two, each party is pressed to get through its best arguments and witnesses. And this is particularly true where there are multiple patents, numerous claims, or different technologies at issue, as frequently happens. Admittedly, foregoing invalidity reduces the time pressure on both parties. But typically the extra time is more helpful to the defendant, who often needs to provide more detailed testimony from more witnesses to show why the infringement allegations are wrong. Because of this dynamic, and in the hopes of making it more difficult for the defendant to mount a successful defense, plaintiffs will often advocate for less overall trial time. Absent the need to spend time putting on an invalidity case, the defendant should have ample time to focus on why it does not infringe, as well as to present any other jury-friendly defenses (e.g., licensing).

106 Iowa L. Rev. 607 (2021)

DOWNLOAD PDF

Abstract

Judges, not juries, typically decide questions of law. Likewise, it is judges who usually review the legality of actions taken by government agencies. And when judges or juries decide fact-laden issues in civil litigation, those decisions commonly receive deference on appeal. Patent law, however, does all of this precisely backwards. In patent infringement cases, juries often decide the legal question of patent validity. When a jury rules on a patent’s validity, it is reviewing the work of an administrative agency, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. And decisions on the case-specific, fact-specific issue of patent validity are reviewed de novo by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases.

These unusual features of patent litigation create significant inefficiencies: patent jury trials are expensive and jury decisions on technologically complex questions of patentability can be unpredictable; stringent standards of appellate review encourage prolonged litigation and result in costly post-appeal do-overs. All of this occurs because the Federal Circuit has drawn a strict, bright line between questions of law and questions of fact, leaving little room for a middle category of questions that require applying the law to the facts of a particular case. In most areas of law—but not often in patent law —those questions are called mixed questions of law and fact.

This Article advances a simple thesis: that all questions of patent validity are, ultimately, mixed questions of law and fact. This approach would greatly simplify Federal Circuit doctrine, which currently treats some validity issues as questions of law, others as questions of fact, and still others as questions of law based on underlying facts. It would also clarify ambiguities in Supreme Court precedent on the law-fact distinction in patent litigation, which similarly resists using the phrase “mixed question.” In addition, treating patent validity as a mixed question would improve the procedure of patent litigation in numerous ways: patent validity would be resolved in reasoned opinions by a judge rather than in the black box of a general jury verdict, those on-the-record judicial decisions would receive appropriate deference on appeal, and judicial review of Patent Office actions would be brought further into the mainstream of administrative law.

Well well, the dear leader sets the tone and others follow his lead.

Endless trivial arguments about nothing in reality.

Pointless

It's still very interesting that although Tesla actually bought and then sold Maxwell, they retained the IP on some of Maxwell's products. Clearly Tesla are very aware that the tech IP they retained is critical to their needs and I believe that originally it was very much for their planned super truck offering although it could easily have been expanded beyond that now. Tesla (Maxwell) lawyers have take a Putin style approach here believing they can out last the opposition through time and money expenditure wearing down CPX. Clearly that hasn't worked to date. Really not sure how a jury is supposed to be able to analyse the very technical nature of such a trial and complexities of patent infringement, would have made more sense to go expert panel assessment but maybe Maxwell realised that would fail so gambling on going via another route.

I see a few have bailed recently, not surprising having made decent returns and not liking any risk.

If the jury finds in favour of CPX, could Maxwell lawyers appeal or is this week when it all gets decided once and for all?

188, so disappointing that our dear leader still abuses others here. Rather than responding I just report every single one of his abusive posts, one removed already today.

Splatted,

100% agreed

🥇🥇🥇♥🎵🎵🎵

123 is Dukes buys

Duke,

It's how AHS operates every day.

His playbook is to attack any new poster, draw a reaction. Then search their posting history to find something to give his claims some credibility and post again attacking the new poster. New poster reacts (quite naturally) and so it goes on.

Then when others complain about the board being ruined he agrees with them claiming the board is being ruined by others.

Rinse and Repeat.

Its a fact that when you green box a poster you cannot see their posts or their name on those posts, so yet again AHS shows he never had me boxed at all.

AHS, you never had me boxed.

Carry on selling

"They started it"...omg, how old are you AHS 80 years old going on 8.......ironic isn't good enough. AHS makes personal attacks on every new poster that joins this little old mans club and then blames them for returning the favour.

Carry on dumping your shares AHS

AHS, saying that BOTS are not real just sums you up