Yes.
However...assuming the case isn't thrown out because Skadden sued the wrong shell company, to my inexperienced eye..
the GLA specifically forbids four of the five charges
the fifth depends on how the judge interprets "exclusively". Going with CIGs interpretation would create a hefty loophole in many a contract as many engine providers do like exclusivity to avoid diluting their technology.
I need to find time to watch that to see why he feels CIG is better placed.
and you still come back to the fact that lawyers are wrong all the time.
That is why many of them lose a case...the law is interpreted differently to what they (and/or their Clients) expected it to be.
In the UK both sides can hold out and go to trial but that is risky (costs, reputation etc) or they can settle.
A huge percent of cases are settled out of court because neither side has a sufficiently high enough probability (according to their respective analysis of the law) of winning. The system is set up to reward early settlement and to discourage going to trial. Which is a major reason why you take the personal vendetta, grievance, emotion etc out of a case quickly as those things tend to cloud judgement. Lawyers will fight and talk big but more often hedge their bets and keep their gobs shut which ime puts you in an uncomfortable position if you think you are right and/or your lawyer seems ot be playing a different game. They work much more on the probability of success rather than what is right and wrong, just or unjust...
I am sure it is similar in the USA.
It is unlikely that Skadden have gotten involved in this if they think the case has no merit so on that alone we probably have something to negotiate about thus presenting a cost, reputation etc risk for CIG.
I am sure French would concede that this can go to either way with what he has to go on, nevermind the fact he isn't party to all the evidence.
