I thought the president said that Canon was going to win this lawsuit. Now we are going to need an appeal? What has changed ? He better hope this is not another one of those RIMM or IDCC deals. Where the big guy gets his face smacked for being arrogant to American legal system.
UPDATE 1-Canon plans to appeal flat-panel court decision
TOKYO, March 29 (Reuters) - Canon Inc. (7751.T: Quote, NEWS , Research) said on Thursday it plans to appeal an expected court decision in the United States regarding a flat-panel patent dispute against Nano-Proprietary Inc. (NNPP.OB: Quote, Profile , Research).
Canon expects the ruling in the first trial to go against it after the court judged earlier this year that a license agreement Canon had with Texas-based Nano-Proprietary didn't extend to the use of the technology by Canon's partner Toshiba (6502.T: Quote, NEWS , Research).
Tokyo-based Canon expects that ruling to come in late April, President Tsuneji Uchida said at a general shareholders meeting.
The dispute involves Nano-Proprietary's technology used in surface-conduction electron-emitter displays (SED), which are said to generate brighter images and consume less energy than existing LCDs
ORDER BE IT REMEMBERED on the 2nd day of April 2007 the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, specifically Canon�s Motion for Partial Reconsideration on the Issue of Damages [#185], Nano� Response thereto [#186], and Canon�s Reply [#191]. Having reviewed these documents, the applicable law, and the case file as a whole, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration, without prejudice to re-urging as a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Plaintiffs� case in chief, for the following reasons.�
So much for the guy predicting a billion dollar punitive damages judgment...
Nano-Proprietary, Inc. Announces Verdict in Canon Litigation
May 3, 2007 13:12:20 (ET)
AUSTIN, TX, May 03, 2007 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Nano-Proprietary, Inc. (NNPP, Trade ) today announced that the jury has reached a verdict in its litigation against Canon, Inc. In its verdict, the jury decided that Nano-Proprietary was due no additional damages beyond those already received, which includes the right to keep the $5.5 million that it originally received and termination of the original license agreement.
"While we are disappointed by the jury's verdict, we need to keep in mind that we already had the most important victory in the case when the Court validated our termination of Canon's license as a result of their material breach of the contract," said Tom Bijou, Chief Executive officer of Nano-Proprietary, Inc. "We were also pleased that during the trial, Canon confirmed its plans to move forward with its SED TV and continue to believe that the advent of field emission display televisions will be a signal event for Nano-Proprietary. We made a significant gesture to Canon during the course of the trial that we hope will provide a framework of cooperation and negotiation for the future. Nothing about today's verdict changes the fact that we have significant intellectual property that we believe will have to be licensed by anybody, including Canon, that wishes to sell televisions based on electron emissions in the broad geographical areas of the world where our IP is in effect. The vast majority of our revenue forecast for 2007 has little to do with televisions. Our growth in the materials and sensor business continues to be one of the drivers of our future."