Monday, March 20, 2017

Case of the Day: GeoVector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20872 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017)


Plaintiff GeoVector alleged that defendant Samsung misappropriated its VR-related technology when it gave a presentation to Samsung in 2002 and 2006. The negotiation failed in 2008, and allegedly, Samsung began selling phones incorporating the plaintiff's technology between 2009 and 2013.

The court dismissed the claim because the three-year statute of limitation has run. The plaintiff claimed that Samsung coaxed them into not filing suit by entering into a licensing negotiation in 2009, when the plaintiff raised the alleged patent violation with Samsung. The court found it was unreasonable for the plaintiff to rely on the post-2009 negotiation, as Samsung clearly indicated it was not about to enter into a licensing agreement.


Here comes another victim of sloppy lawyering (if the plaintiff consulted a lawyer to negotiate with the defendant, that is.) Because the plaintiff never thought ahead about the litigation strategy in case their business negotiation failed, they took too long to file a suit and lost because of statute of limitations. Remember: even if you are a transactional attorney, you must always look ahead and think about how the structure of your transaction affects any future lawsuit.

No comments:

Post a Comment