I saw the line is only 2.5... I'm not so sure it will be 3 scores, but it won't be 3 points!

They prosecuted it? I didn't notice. Well, they're good advocates! :-)

Ned, I don't know. Class actions are something I know a lot about in narrow areas. I can see preemption issues and who knows what else arising!

Thanks - not something I've ever thought about. Seems weird though -- what if the claim is narrowed but still infringed? Anyhow, adios to this thread!

I don't know the answer to this: you get six years after expiration to get pre-expiration damages (barring laches, etc.). So, if I have a patent in IPR and it expires, can it be amended so that I can recover damages for period prior to expiration on those claims? I just don't know.

Yes, that would have been nice! Seriously, I like to wake up and see what's going on, but my typing/grammar/proofreading skills aren't so good at that time!

I can speculate both ways. Let me speculate their way (and, with a complaint, that's what we're required to do): They have a patent that is essential to performance of networks of certain sizes. The research needed, therefore, is to determine (a) does the company have a network and (b) does it have a certain number of employees. In today's world, the odds of a company over a certain size not having a network are, I would say, near zero. With respect to abhorrent actions... so trademark lawyers are bad? (See post below re Starbucks sending a C&D to a bar). Patent lawyers who represent Apple can sue in the ITC and keep out all phones of other makers, and that's okay, but somebody whose patent only covers end users can't do the same thing? I don't know the facts, I guess is my main point. NOTE: I haven't had any coffee yet.

By the way, heebie jeebies is a great name. I am not sure how many of my students at Mercer, most of whom were born around 1988 or so, would have a clue what it meant!

Good point. I'll fix it.

Works great for me.

Nobody says that! Sorry, I could not resist.

The rule that attorneys fees incurred in defending a suit are not recoverable, even though they're caused by the need to sue (or the fact of having been sued) as "damages" is so settled in American Law it's not worth discussing, guys. This is ancient.

Ned, We'll just disagree. But, if attorney fees are "damages" then the American Rule elevates form over substance. It's done so for 200 plus years, since even if you win a suit, you have to pay your own lawyers' fees (unless a statute provides otherwise).

No, I'm not confusing anything. The American Rule is that winner pays fees unless there is a rule/statute otherwise. There are HUNDREDS of those rules and statutes, all of which are, apparently, unconstitutional. The Due Process clause led to Gore. This court would NEVER read a substantive due process right into any part of the Constitution. It just ain't there and, again, what you're arguing is a last-step statutory construction point, disfavored (hugely) by this court.

There's no way an "implied" in the First Amendment is the American rule (that loser does not pay fees, which is the British Rule). But putting that aside, the party arguing that the statute should not be given what it meant in 1946-52 would have the burden to show that the interpretation given to it by the courts then, and adopted by Congress in 1952, on its face or as-applied violates this "right." You don't start with the end, as I said up above: you start with the language of the statute and there's no doubt what Congress meant by it, due to the Reviser's note and Federico's commentaries and the specific adoption of the 1946-52 construction.

I loved that.

As the California case states: " Equilon cites no case in which a fee-shifting provision has been held unconstitutional under Professional Real Estate Investors or its rationale. (See generally Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society (1975) 421 U.S. 240, 262, 44 L. Ed. 2d 141, 95 S. Ct. 1612 [finding it "apparent that the circumstances under which attorneys' fees are to be awarded and the range of discretion of the courts in making those awards are matters for Congress to determine"].)"