I am thinking that maybe one of the reasons that they didn't pursue the foreign patents was because of Leckrook.
We'll probably never know, but if they did so, it would've been like shooting oneself in the foot. Letting patents move toward expiration without any attempt at monetization because of a bad business partner creates a lose/lose situation.
I wonder if the appeals panel will consider that there were 300+ companies that saw the patents as valid and signed a license?
Doubtful, for one reason because your statement is inaccurate. As I've said on scores of occasions over the years, all but the first few licenses were signed as part of nuisance value settlements, which is a sign of weakness, not strength, as to the patent holder. Such deals are most certainly not an indication that the patents were "[seen] as valid" by the companies that settled/licensed.
I wonder if they will reach out to Grewal for comment?
Highly doubtful, but again, we'll never know. In any event, even should such a thing occur, there will certainly be no indication of it in the Federal Circuit ruling.
I also wonder if in fact they will see fit to rule against the patent office and all the re-exams.
I suppose we'll see --- but Grewal did. We must remember that, due to the AIA, the issues have become so politicized that there is much less emphasis on maintaining the prior status quo. I remain of the opinion that the Federal Circuit should reverse based on the fact that Grewal changed his own ruling despite there being no change in the evidence, but again, "politics be strong stuff" (as one of my old law professors was fond of saying).
All and all, cruel and unusual punishment for a small company with a game changing technology.
Agreed as a civil law analogy.
