Quote:
Originally posted by Ken
The answers do matter 
1. They WERE in litigation with Acacia. They were served with a lawsuit quite some time ago and thus litigation began. Might want to check the dictionary again on this one. Litigation has nothing to do with going to court. By definition, it is "To engage in legal proceedings"
.
|
Maybe more like they were served with letters from Acacia's attorney firm that stated the infringements... and there were several rounds of exchanges on definitions and charges. Unless of course you really meant that a court date was set and they were going to go to court, but before that court date, they settled.
This is where i get my definition for Litigation, where did you get yours?
Black's Law Dictionary (the accepted standard in the industry): Litigation, n. 1. The process of carrying on a lawsuit <the attorney advised his client to make a generous settlement offer in order to avoid litigation>. 2. A lawsuit itself <several litigations pending before the court>. -litigate, vb. -litigatory, litigational.
or
http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-l.htm
i understand that for most, this seems to be a silly issue of semantics, but the law is all about semantics, and putting twists and spins on issues is all about semantics..
Fight The Patent!