Sangeth Call ONEVICTORY Thank you Sangeth you made a OCEANS 14 Call on O1. It is the cream placed on the cake. It was your article from Sept 1st 2012 and the Goergia Pacific Factors. I hope people have not placed this in the back of their minds. Pleased to Post again for you and I am sure O1 law team agrees with the pay day taller than Mount Everst:
those factors that strongly support one case:
ENJOY and B& H O1 law team love this support
Factor 1. The royalties received by the patent owner for the licensing
of the patent-in-suit, proving or tending to prove an established
royalty;
-Hitachi License, Dell License, Bomgar License
Factor 4. The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to
maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the
invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to
preserve that monopoly
-At time of infringement began in 2007, there were NO licenses
granted, other than Hitachi 30% royalty and one pending lawsuit versus
CTXS. CTXS was sued immediately after patent was granted in 2005.
Established policy was then NOT to license at that time.
Factor 5: The commercial relationship between the licensor and the
licensee, such as whether they are competitors in the same territory
in the same line of business, or whether they are inventor and
promoter
-We are a competitor with our own ImInTouch suite of products with a
viable albeit largely unsuccessful business, greatly attributed to
details of CTXS' infringement and documented in that case (concerning
winning bids etc). No matter how anyone wants to spin it, we are a
direct competitor with products and revenues.
Factor 6: The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting
sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the
invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented
items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales.
-LOGM has admitted that giving away the LogMeIn Pro versions of their
remote access to, in their words ''funnel'' their customers into other
offerings. This is means they’re using our patented technology as a
loss leader to generate and target a wider audience for their other
products. A standard royalty on net sales of the allegedly infringing
products will be circumvented by this factor.
Factor 8 - The established profitability of the product made under the
patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity;
-90%+ gross profit. This is a high margin, highly profitable business.
Factor 9. The utility and advantages of the patent property over the
old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out
similar results
Factor 15. The amount that a licensor (such as the patent owner) and a
licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time
the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily
trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount that a prudent
licensee – who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license
to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented
invention – would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be
able to make a reasonable profit, and which amount would have been
acceptable by a prudent patent owner who was willing to grant a
license.
Solid work Sangeth and the rest of the OCEAN 14 Team: You Know who you are. I am please to know you. Thanks
Younkers Ny NY