Thanx john.As a layman I always thought the feb 15 was not in stone and could easily be postponed and delayed.If they moved jan 15 to feb 15 why couldnt they postpone feb 15?
Law360, New York (January 21, 2015, 3:46 PM ET) -- Becton Dickinson and Co. has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether a general verdict in a multi-claim suit can stand if one or more of the claims is later found invalid on appeal, saying the Federal Circuit wrongly ruled that a $5 million damages award against it in a syringe patent case didn't have to be recalculated.
So BDX loses in District Court, loses in the Appeals Court, and now has the balls to ask the Supreme Court for the $2 million dollars back. It's cost BDX more in lawyers fees. IMHO, The Supreme Court will toss this out.
RVP filed its opposition to the motion to stay yesterday in the Fifth Circuit. Unfortunately, it is under seal and therefore not available for review. RVP also filed (again under seal) a motion asking the court to expedite consideration of the main appeal. If eventually granted the final appellate decision could be moved up by about 6 months. This would likely mean a decision later this year.
As an aside, be aware that the Fifth Circuit will possibly push back the Feb 14 deadline by a few weeks if the Fifth Circuit needs more time to consider the motion to stay. This is a normal practice.
IMHO, There has been a seller for last week. They had a lot more than 65,000 shares to sell.The specialist on the AMEX has been painting the tape lower after the close for the last week. Guess what ?, he didn't do it today. Time will tell..................
As a trader i will say I am surprised a bit by the relative high volume and one never knows if or when history will repeat itself and a blogger with followers will appear again with a positive note or may take a negative spin this time around.It is the mkt after all and we have had the noose around buying at 4.40 down to 4 adding in the outside director multi k planned sale coupled with the releasing and re releasing of old uneventfull news just after the mkt closes or shortly before the opening bell.
And the EXTRA to be printed between next week and feb 15th will be coming out of Circuit 5.
There was what looked like a cleanup block 0f 66, 852 shares today @ $4.20. Traded 100, 000 shares after that block, no price lower than 4.22
We may play Bradley Cooper in setting our sights on either side of the company or platoons and pulling the trigger as we see fit..
Repo thats a way to look at it.Clearly our small little highly informative mb has put us in the hills looking down in the valley as the buy platoons and companies venture upon the sell platoon and cpmpanies
They certainly are independent claims that in the main appeal will be separately considered. The Lanham Act claim and the separate antitrust claim each individually provide support for the injunction.The main appeal being something that will be decided some 12 to 15 months from now, assuming no settlement.
In the next few weeks the Fifth Circuit will decide whether to stay the injunction pending completion of the appeal (in 12 to 15 months). In opposing the stay motion, RVP will want to emphasize that there are 2 strong, independent reasons why the injunction will survive the appeal - the antitrust claim and the Lanham Act claim. At this point relative to the motion it seems more straight forward to argue the strength of the Lanham Act claim. It is just a less complicated legal theory. The main appeal will of course have to address both in great detail.
As an aside, the extra language and detail RVP sort to include in the final judgment may have been a "sneaky" attempt to buttress the Lanham Act claim by having the court enunciate findings of fact in more detailed support of the Lanham Act claim.
I'm not sure I understand how BD claiming that res judicata precluded prosecution of the Lanham Act claim, is the basis for claiming likelihood success on appeal. Even if the Circuit Court on appeal determines that the Lanham claim should not have been litigated, isn't this harmless error as the antitrust claim was separately litigated and would hold up even if the Lanham claim was thrown out by Judge Davis?
As a follow up, though I expect RVP may decide to file an opposition to the motion to stay by Friday, it is technically not due until next week. A key issue for RVP to address is why BD is wrong that it (BD) is likely to succeed on appeal in having the injunction set aside. I still believe RVP should primarily rely on the Lanham Act claim as support for the injunction. The antitrust claim can be addressed secondarily. Given BD has more or less agreed that the complained of statements are false, BD’s best argument is that res judicata precluded prosecution of the unfair competition (Lanham Act) claim. RVP has a good counter argument relying on a Federal Circuit patent infringement case (Aspex Eyewear v. Marchon, 672 F. 2d 1335). A more recent 2014 case from the Second Circuit, however, is a case that in great detail explains the relevant law (from the Second Circuit’s perspective) in a way favorable to RVP. It is worth reading if you would like to understand this issue. Most importantly it addresses a later suit, res judicata trademark infringement claim (TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, 12cv4174 (2d Cir. July 15, 2014). The court in short held that :
“Because we conclude that at least as to its trademark infringement claim, TechnoMarine's complaint is properly read at this stage of the litigation to assert liability based on new, post-settlement conduct, this claim, and perhaps others, are “not barred by res judicata ” even though “premised on facts representing a continuance of the same ‘course of conduct.’ “
It is pretty amazing how many people buy and sell with no idea what is going on. Today's press release of last week's news is a perfect example. Range of $4 to $5 when absolutely nothing new happened. I will not be surprised if this dips initially on a good settlement. I hope I'm looking if that happens.
IMHO, today's action were traders who bought on the false settlement news on Thursday evening and dumped their shares today. There was no new news..............
neither company reported on the final judgement....... no 8-K's from either company
which means the ones did report the already news (was helping the smart money get in or out of shares ) before the NEWS
The next interesting event will be the filing of RVP's opposition to BD's motion for a stay before the Fifth Circuit. Probably will be filed in next day or so. BD's papers are to this point relatively weak. I expect BD will do a better with its reply brief. Still believe there is a very good chance the motion gets denied and BD feels pressure to settle.