I worked for an Australian company that won an Australian court case where another Australian company had copied design (patent and licensing not relevant in this situation) and the other company had sold the copied products. The other company did not cease their sales when first requested and defended their case but lost due to some overwhelming evidence. I was involved in retrieving our company's statistics in regards to the individual average margin of our company's products etc. I don't know all of the details of the final calculation workings, however the court decision involved a calculation to our company's favour including a consideration of that average margin multiplied by the number of products the other company sold (or had in progress), plus return of all legal costs. The other company's customers got to keep the copied products. The other company could no longer sell those copied products. Although it was a tough few years with courts etc, a large value was involved with the final outcome (in hindsight) being a lot of "easy money" made by the company I worked for.
On the bright-side, the RGI case seems straightforward to me, so then it then seems to me that the longer Ravenquest go on with their product, either the more licensing, or more margin return will be returned to RGI in the end, the longer the case continues. I would hope that RGI would have established a "high" standard licensing fee that would apply to Ravenquest for going forward with the case, and I would expect that the publicity of our product will also be a benefit to RGI. GLTAH
RGI Price at posting:
16.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
