I am in that camp that holds that even if the court rules in favour of Ealeview, perish the thought, the worst case outcome would be relatively trivial because the slither of NEA's business that is relevant to the patent dispute is small relative to NEA's total business. Further, NEA has behaved as a “model litigant” and respected the temporary injunction to cease that line of business, so we shall not see the “triple damages” smack in the face that was ruled in Eagleviews favour in the Verisk-Eagleview litigation. Verisk's appeal has been withdrawn now that the parties have agreed to pursue the roof-plan business together, so we are not going to witness a forensic decision on the appeal.
We, and I in particular, have posted far too much on this litigation matter, so I'll not argue any further about the merits, or otherwise, of the patents claim.
The Federal Trade Commission challenged Verisk's takeover of Eagleview in 2014 on the grounds that the merger of the two firms would diminish competition. Now that Verisk and Eagleview are joining forces in a different guise, I wonder if the FTC would have a view on that too? See
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=53438f9a-e91a-4ae7-9401-d5cbdbd172ba.
