Ann: FY21 preliminary results, exceeds recently upgraded guidance, page-83

If NEA's lawyers can mount a case to the effect that Eagleview's patented invention fails the non-obvious provision of Section 103 of Title 35 of the United States Code, the case would be won for NEA.

My background includes: low levels of IT and GISs, schoolboy understanding of trigonometry and its use via triangulation in mapping and surveying; some knowledge of what architects, quantity surveyors and surveyors do for a living; and an idea of roofing in the USA, which because of climate is a very different sector to what it is in Australia. With that shallow background, to me what Eagleview has patented would have been obvious to, as Section 103 puts it, a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. I am curious to see if the defence is going to take that path.

I gained the impression when I first looked at the Eagleview-Verisk matter that Verisk hand handled its defence very badly, but not knowing the facts, and not being qualified to comment, I did not post the view that I had written in draft. A few minutes ago, I read https://www.bressler.com/publication-how-to-really-lose-a-patent-infringement-case. It is very interesting.