4 ms·

To be fair to Google - doesn't the fact that they even agree to any damages weaken their case? I don't understand why they would have to determine damages befor

• tzs 15y ago
  In a patent case, the plaintiff puts forth two arguments for the jury: 1. The defendant infringes the patent. 2. The damages for said infringement should be $X. The defendant will put forth three arguments: 1. Plaintiff doesn't even have a valid patent. This is really several arguments, directed at pretty much everything that plaintiff must have done for their patent to be valid and theirs. 2. Defendant does not infringe the patent. 3. IF they did infringe the patent, the plaintiff's damage numbers are nuts and the correct damages would be $Y (which is much smaller than $X). To make their damage arguments, both sides bring in experts on damages, who write reports which are submitted to the court, and then the experts testify about these reports in front of the jury. Before the trial starts, both sides challenge the qualifications of the other side's damages expert, trying to convince the court he's a quack and the court should throw out his report and make the other side offer a reasonable damage theory. That's about the stage they are at now.