This is Where the Patent Litigation Ends: Cross-Licenses & Share Prices Up
So how about reverse engineering the litigation? What steps were actually necessary to achieve the settlement? Was it something more than just wearing one another out? Were early summary judgment or adjudication motions needed before the situation could be clearly sized up? Were the legal issues or the business issues more prominent? Where were the carrots and where were the sticks?
This lawsuit was filed five years ago.
Does someone in-house rigorously analyze the data in the wake of a settlement like this? Because this is how most patent infringement lawsuits will end. Cross-licenses. Dismissals. Licensing fees. A rise in share price.
Was this a business problem burdened by legal issues or a legal problem burdening commercial interests?
Settlement details below from Veeco Settles Patent Suit with Asylum Research (h/t to the AmLaw Daily -- Settlement Reached in Teeny-Tiny Technology Case)
Veeco Instruments Inc. said Monday it has settled a patent infringement lawsuit that it filed in 2003 against Asylum Research Corp., a private company founded by former Veeco employees. Under the terms of the settlement, Asylum will pay Veeco an initial license fee as well as ongoing royalties under a five-year cross-license agreement of the two companies' patents. Financial terms were not disclosed. . . .
Veeco . . . makes metrology tools used to measure at the nanoscale level and process equipment tools used to create nanoscale devices. . . . . In the suit, Veeco alleged that Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Asylum's MFP-3D atomic force microscopes infringed on Veeco's patents.
Veeco's shares rose 47 cents, or 2.7 percent, to $17.75 in morning trading
