I saw your post, but I don't think it's possible to compare any other cases to this one, as each case depends on what was stolen, and it's 'value', and the amount of money made by the theif, and the amount lost by the victim.
That is why the court wants to see all Stanelco's paperwork relating to PF1, and why SEO and BPRG have submitted their reasons for any value being put on the damages.
As myself and others have said before, SEO do not have a commercial deal for the technology, so they have in fact lost money by spending on R&D, whereas BPRG shelved the idea 6 years ago, and spent nothing on R&D for it since then, and they cannot prove that if they had the patent 6 years ago, that they would have done better than SEO and commecialised the technology, so they have lost nothing.
Stora Enso stock quotes
Stora Enso stock charts
Follow this thread
