Ann: Trading Halt, page-77

There is an obligation for purchasers to use due diligence like doing patent searches etc . In the US if you wilfully infringe damages can be up to three times .

Damages for loss of profit if proven if proven by the Patent holder can be obtained. At the least it would be equivalent to what a reasonable royalty would be .

Any competent contract lawyer would ensure there was a warranty from the seller ( Pushpin) that the contract material does not infringe any persons IP rights which includes Patents. Further there should be an indemnity in the contract to Nearmap from Pushpin covering all expenses and damages if there is a subsequent liability incurred by Nearmap because of a breach. I am not sure about US insurance limitations but I assume a company could get cover for this kind of liability.

I do not think the US has our equivalent defence of the innocent competent purchaser . In Australia this limits past damages but US Patent law is more a strict liability thing. In Australia there is a penalty for bringing a patent infringement to court if it was unreasonable to do so causing unjustifiable harm to the innocent infringing party, again no such requirement in the US. ( Its more complex please note I am being very broad)

Eagleview would have a case against Pushpin . Facts here are not known to me but as long as Eagleview have issued a do not use infringement notices to relevant parties in a reasonable time period after they got to know about the breach they are fine. Mitigation of damages would not apply then but it all depends on the facts as to whether they acted reasonably quickly.

The company getting the infringement notice has to immediately proceed to not use the material even before a court injunction is obtained as demonstrated by Nearmaps notice to customers. This does not amount to any legal liability it is part of the process and in Court the infringing party can apply to court to fight this on the basis it would not be in the public interest or some other limited exemption.

I do not know how long this matter has been going on and what court actions have taken place. It is possible the parties were discussing royalties or license fees as a remedy but talks were not successful.

Only further particulars in a statement of claim and a defence in response will make things clear . So waiting for Friday for more clarity.

I am no expert on US Patent Law so there maybe someone else on this forum who can give a more detailed account and or correct my comments.