"For the article to fail to mention this material aspect of the settlements before concluding that they must be "trivial" in amount seems incomplete."
"The insinuation from the article that reviewing VirnetX's next 10-Q in order to infer the size of the agreements seems similarly indefensible."
"This seems especially more likely than normal due to the fact that two of the seven patents being asserted by VirnetX in the current cases were asserted previously against Microsoft and the jury in that case found those two patents to be valid, enforceable and infringed."
"However, there are several factors that distinguish the Microsoft settlement from the current actions, and the anonymous author's numerical comparison between the Microsoft settlement and the current actions seems flawed regardless."
"I do disagree with the anonymous author's assertion that the Microsoft settlement somehow is a relative cap on how much VirnetX could recover in the current actions."
"However, three of the four cited cases were not Court of Appeals decisions reversing large jury awards due to their size, and the fourth case has an inconclusive result. Therefore, the anonymous author's reliance on these cases to argue that large jury verdicts are destined to be reversed on appeal is flawed."
"Thus, the case is not over and the implication in the article from last week that this case is a clear example of a high damages award being overturned on appeal is just simply not correct."
"That statement appears to be pure speculation."
"Thus, again, this was not a Court of Appeals case reversing a large jury verdict for a patentee."
"Thus, the article's assertion that this case supports a conclusion that large jury verdicts won't stand on appeal is, like the above cases, not legitimate."
"I do believe last week's article casting doubt on the viability of their claims was substantially flawed."