Comments on: Top 5 reasons not to settle IP Litigation

By: Duncan

Duncan — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:45:13 +0000

Kent – great points, thanks, and welcome.

I guess ‘reasonable’ is what’s being at least thought (if not said) internally – the framework is a (good) attempt at an objective standard of reasonableness – would you agree?

By: Kent Richardson

Kent Richardson — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:00:06 +0000

1'. Might be better stated as neither side can present a settlement calculation methodology acceptable to the other side. "Close to offering a reasonable deal" implies that both sides have a sense of what "reasonable" would be. The practical implication is that using words like "reasonable" almost guarantees that you'll have an extended fight on your hands. If you present the situation as "there is no agreed upon framework to structure a settlement" you take the inflammatory, "you're being unreasonable," element out of the equation.

BTW, this point not only applies to the opposing side, but even in gathering the internal support for an offer to the other side. If the internal team doesn't agree on a settlement model, how would one ever expect the opposing side to agree on a model.

4'. Settlement will be seen as a sign of weakness by other potential & actual litigants.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:10:48 +0000

Jeremy - great point.
Apologies, your comment only just came through the system, I suspect you may have not clicked on the 'confirm' button. Sorry about that.
It's a great point, and, of course relies on a proper communication strategy so that shareholders fully understand the implications of settling.

By: Leighton

Leighton — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:16:52 +0000

Ah yes, of course, perhaps I should have written:

7. where you know you have a weak case but are facing a jury or are in a court where random decisions are quite frequent..