Re: "Pretrial Conference"
in response to
by
posted on
Dec 12, 2007 09:36AM
Hand of God
While many of us share your enthusiasm, and I understand you are "thinking aloud," your post is breathtakingly wrong in many ways, so I would like to clarify a few points:
1) You wrote: "So with alot of people saying that "I want a trial" ... is this not just as good??"
A: No. a pretrial conference is simply a status conference to discuss schedules, timing, and general housekeeping issues. Of course, settlement issues can be discussed, but it is not remotely analogous to a trial.
2) You wrote: "If this is settled, IMHO this will have the same outcome (patent validation) as a trial with a victory and tripple damages etc. ..."
A: There is nothing in this statement that is accurate. It does not validate anything. There is no finding on the merits, no res judicata on the issues, and no "tripple" [triple] damages come into play at all.
3) You wrote: "I think that TPL/Patriot has nothing to loose by taking ths thing all the way to trial but both will come to a agreement with appropriate terms."
A: That is grossly misleading and can be read as a non sequitor. You can't "take this thing all the way to trial" and then "come to an agreement." You can prepare for trial and settle beforehand (perhaps that is what you meant.) When a case like this goes to trial, the litigants have a LOT to lose. PTSC has, in my opinion, a lot more at stake than just $$.I think TPL/PTSC is in a much stronger position given the Markman results, the signings, et. al., but over-generalizations like yours offer only confusion and can lead some to make an incorrect conclusion about what is at stake, and what the Pre-Trial Conference means.
--tps