Pugs. Blank R and R&G are on contingency
R&G are on contingency for a reason, because upfront they reviewed their likelihood of victory or loss, with the R&G think tank , consisting of top partners comprising of top lawyers , former judges, and all the resources at their disposal ,their DD included breaking and assessing the strength of SFORs patent, reviewed and scrutinized everything at SFOR .
The conclusion is they feel very confident they wont lose, that they are taking a calculated risk in fronting upfront costs, the risk of losing however they evidently feel is very, very remote. They should know, they don't lose. Doesn't matter who they are up against.
They are armed with a well written patent by an Patent law firm in BR, a 9.5 mil MSFT out of court settlement , a PTAB victory they felt that they will win their cases. Since then however the SFORs case got 100 times stronger in the wth the supreme court decision on PTABs , and Precedent that was submitted via supplemental authority and the countless alice 101's that have been overturned.
Oh I will throw this in "they have never lost a patent infringement case" They have taken several cases to the supreme court to win their cases. 4 times in 2016.
How many Personal injury lawyers lose when they are on contingency? Very, very remote. Viewed a guaranteed money. Have there been losses ,yes, perhaps, but very very rare. Probably due the lawyers not evaluating the case thoroughly enough.
At any rate, I understand the spirit of your post, basically contingency lawyers feel they will not lose the case so they are willing to pay up front costs.
Not lose? Guaranteed? Slam dunk ? I mean is it tomato tomaato. I think its not saying guaranteed in an absolute sense , just a confidence sense, supreme confidence based on calculated knowledge & experience . IMO
Yes while there are no guarantees , but the spirit of your post as I read it is, its extremely rare to lose a case as strong as SFORs unless you have bumbling Judge handling it lol Then you win on appeal.
I wouldn't want to minimize the strength of SFORs position in this case. SFOR has a mountain of legal evidence in its favor, Doug H is steering the SFOR patent ship to victory harbor, SA on the other hand has what amounts to a pile of steamy DD, not due diligence, Doggy Doo and the legal equivalent of Baghdad Bob steering theirs ship for its oral argument.
Did I say that R&G has never lost a Patent infringement case?
All of us can feel extremely confident in the strength of our position when it comes to our court case in appeal court. I feel if Ropes and Grey and Blank Romend litigation financiers have put all their chips on the table for the SFOR win based on what they know, so will I .
R&G are on contingency for a reason, because upfront they reviewed their likelihood of victory or loss, with the R&G think tank , consisting of top partners comprising of top lawyers , former judges, and all the resources at their disposal ,their DD included breaking and assessing the strength of SFORs patent, reviewed and scrutinized everything at SFOR .
The conclusion is they feel very confident they wont lose, that they are taking a calculated risk in fronting upfront costs, the risk of losing however they evidently feel is very, very remote. They should know, they don't lose. Doesn't matter who they are up against.
They are armed with a well written patent by an Patent law firm in BR, a 9.5 mil MSFT out of court settlement , a PTAB victory they felt that they will win their cases. Since then however the SFORs case got 100 times stronger in the wth the supreme court decision on PTABs , and Precedent that was submitted via supplemental authority and the countless alice 101's that have been overturned.
Oh I will throw this in "they have never lost a patent infringement case" They have taken several cases to the supreme court to win their cases. 4 times in 2016.
How many Personal injury lawyers lose when they are on contingency? Very, very remote. Viewed a guaranteed money. Have there been losses ,yes, perhaps, but very very rare. Probably due the lawyers not evaluating the case thoroughly enough.
At any rate, I understand the spirit of your post, basically contingency lawyers feel they will not lose the case so they are willing to pay up front costs.
Not lose? Guaranteed? Slam dunk ? I mean is it tomato tomaato. I think its not saying guaranteed in an absolute sense , just a confidence sense, supreme confidence based on calculated knowledge & experience . IMO
Yes while there are no guarantees , but the spirit of your post as I read it is, its extremely rare to lose a case as strong as SFORs unless you have bumbling Judge handling it lol Then you win on appeal.
I wouldn't want to minimize the strength of SFORs position in this case. SFOR has a mountain of legal evidence in its favor, Doug H is steering the SFOR patent ship to victory harbor, SA on the other hand has what amounts to a pile of steamy DD, not due diligence, Doggy Doo and the legal equivalent of Baghdad Bob steering theirs ship for its oral argument.
Did I say that R&G has never lost a Patent infringement case?
All of us can feel extremely confident in the strength of our position when it comes to our court case in appeal court. I feel if Ropes and Grey and Blank Romend litigation financiers have put all their chips on the table for the SFOR win based on what they know, so will I .
7
