The International Roof Exhibition 2021 has been a rather instructive experience. I have visited people I have not seen since Covid struck and when they start updating me on various issues and questions, I admit that I have learned a lot. One of the issues I learned about for the first time was the huge rating that EagleView received from Xactware for patent infringement.
The discussion about the patent infringement came only after I mentioned how big the EagleView presence was at Expo. Given that the size of the verdict must be well over $ 400 million in interest and legal fees, EagleView must be able to afford it.
When I investigated the matter, I came across this EagleView message to customers before the trial: 1
We are writing to update you on the status of our patent case against Verisk and Xactware. The case, which has been ongoing since 2015, will now be heard on June 10 in Camden, NJ. As we have previously reported, EagleView has won many significant victories over the past two years as Xactware and Verisk have sought to invalidate EagleView's patents or delay the process. EagleView's repeated successes have confirmed the strength of its patents, while eliminating the last barriers to a jury trial over Xactware and Verisk's illegal use of EagleView's patented technologies.
. . . .Xactware and Verisk flood social media with attempts to downplay these important events and make a number of incorrect statements. For example, Xactware and Verisk claim that EagleView "abandoned three patents and 142 claims" in the case. In fact, EagleView has consistently claimed for several years that Verisk and Xactware violate each of the 153 claims originally made in this case. While it is true that EagleView withdrew some allegations, Verisk and Xactware agreed in court that this withdrawal of EagleView was an administrative step "to present a more streamlined version of the case", and not a reflection on the strength of the withdrawn requirements. . Xactware and Verisk did not win anything; the two sides simply agreed to reduce the number of claims to make the presentation of evidence more manageable for the jury.
Verisk also states that EagleView before the lawsuit confirmed that Verisk did not infringe its intellectual property. & # 39; It's actually wrong; in fact, EagleView has repeatedly informed Verisk and Xactware of its ongoing breach and was forced to evoke the current mood when Verisk and Xactware refused to quit. Critically, Verisk and Xactware have recently presented the same position to the court on a request for a summary judgment. The court denied Verisk and Xactware's motion and noted its "surprise" that Verisk and Xactware could have had such a conviction.
Finally, Verisk claims that it "performed three-dimensional modeling of buildings almost 20 years ago and began image analysis in 2004 to provide our customers with innovation." , when Verisk and Xactware first saw EagleView's patented technology, they repeatedly and very publicly praised EagleView for its innovations that led Verisk to make an attempt to acquire EagleView 2014.
A press release at the time of the expected 2014 merger painted a very rosier image:
Based in Rochester, New York and Bothell, Washington, EVT was formed in January 2013 as a result of a combination of Pictometry International Corp. and Eagle View Technologies, Inc. The combined company has one of the most comprehensive image libraries. covering more than 85 percent of the U.S. population, more than a million square miles and circa 90 percent of the total U.S. structures. EVT uses this image library to provide its own solutions for property and accident insurance, authorities and a number of other commercial markets. EVT has developed unique technology for imaging and processing, which enables an understanding of physical properties that can be used for valuation and risk management. With more than 24 petabytes of image-related data, EVT has established itself at the forefront of the market.
“The acquisition of EVT improves our position in the image analysis market and adds new municipal and commercial customers. The transaction supports the air development solution development that has been going on at our Xactware unit, says Scott Stephenson, President and CEO of Verisk Analytics. “We believe that we can build on the extensive coverage of EVT's library to expand solutions to our customers, including guarantees and, over time, also international solutions. We look forward to combining the strong operations that the EVT team has built up with Verisk's analytical ability and unsurpassed customer relationships in the market for property / accident insurance. "
Jim Loveland, President and CEO of Verisk & # 39 ;s Xactware Operations, added:" We We are pleased to welcome our new colleagues to the Verisk family and look forward to integrating their extensive knowledge and experience of images with our own. This acquisition will enable us to improve our existing claims and insurance tools and expand the solutions we can offer our existing property / damaged customers. We also intend to improve solutions that EVT currently provides to the municipal, government and other commercial markets. "
" This combination is a natural culmination of the companies we have built over the years and a profit for our customers and employees, "says Chris Barrow, CEO of EVT. "Our teams are ready to build on the strength of our existing solutions with the benefit of Verisk's analytical expertise, customer relationships and financial resources."
Some may suggest that Verisk made a big mistake in not buying EagleView based on the dollar amount of the patent case. The lawsuit resulted in a $ 125 million verdict for EagleView. But the case did not end there because the judge had to decide whether the verdict should be tripled. After examining the case, the court made an assessment of $ 375 million in part:
Given the context of the circumstances and a review of the Read factors, the court amplifies the damages as far as possible. The Court is, of course, aware of the damages in this action, but its analysis is largely governed by the extent and severity of the defendant's misconduct. Thus, the Court finds that all Read factors, as well as other considerations, benefit improvement and treble injuries will be awarded. 2
Xactware and EagleView are huge players in the property insurance calculation claims industry. The case has enormous consequences and has resulted in Xactware being able to use some improvements that violated EagleView's patents. The case is being appealed.
Thought For The Day
Of all our inventions for mass communication, images still speak the most universally understood language.
– Walt Disney
1 https://www.eagleview.com/newsroom/2019/03/customer-update/  2  EagleView Tech. v. Xactware Solutions No. 1: 15-CV-07025, -F.Supp.3d-, 2021 WL 568045 (D.N.J. 16 February 2021).