Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: i am not familiar with vhc

By: postyle in IDCC | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 29 Jun 12 9:11 PM | 356 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications 		Msg. 45645 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 45644 by bim24)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Stays are not mandatory. They can be requested.

Different venues, different remedies.

In VHC's case(s), the primary district court litigation against Apple has not been stayed. There have been thousands of filings and motions and requests for segregation and etc. etc. etc. Just this week, Apple asked Judge Davis (Tyler, TX) to rule that their alleged infringement (both pre- and post- complaint) was not willful... so that VHC can't ask for treble damages in the future.

So yeah, I follow that company as closely as I follow IDCC. And no portion of the main case, especially the Apple portion, has been stayed.

EDITED: OldDog alerted me to a newer smaller district case for VHC's '181 patent that was stayed when they made the parallel ITC complaint. The main district case ('135, '759, '180, '504, '151, and '211 patents) has not been stayed, still proceeding toward a scheduled November trial).

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: i am not familiar with vhc
By: bim24 in IDCC
Fri, 29 Jun 12 8:58 PM 		Msg. 45644 of 48237

it seemed from reading our cases, a stay at the district level was mandatory while the ITC was going on... but it doesn't seem to be the case... unless maybe the apple portion was stayed while the cisco, siemens etc went on and got a markman hearing.

« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next