News Intellectual Property Litigation UK Law firms A&O and McDermott to reveal costs before trial By The Lawyer 15 December 2008 14:22 17 December 2015 15:44 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Judge Judy 15 December 2008 at 17:29 Keep your oar out If RIM are happy with a giant bill, I can’t really see that it’s anyone else’s place to stick their oar in. Am I missing something here? Reply Link City Gent 15 December 2008 at 18:49 Keep your oar out Yes, you are missing something. The cost of litigation in London is spiralling out of control, and headline figures of £6m for A&O’s costs will frighten potential litigants from either taking action or using London to do so. Also, such vast amounts may be OK if their own client’s paying, but not if the opposition’s being dumped with them. Lawyers’ notorious greed must be reined in, and the courts are the ones to do it. Reply Link headhunter 16 December 2008 at 09:29 A win is a win! Your not missing anything – why is the bill from A+O under any speculation at all – as far as RIM are concerned, this is a huge commercial victory and at the end of the day it will help save them market share, the uniqueness of their product in this market and ultimately UK profits dwarfing the £6M legal cost. Reply Link Barry Mafia 16 December 2008 at 15:22 Troll-tastic Gravy Train Headhunter’s also missing something (and probably works for A&O). I f you look at the costs judgment, you’ll see that RIM itself conceded that the patent it had spent £6m to save (it lost two other patents – so more of a loss than a win) was of little commercial value. The patents in suit in the UK had (I think) nothing to do with the action RIM settled in the US for hundreds of millions of dollars. Money down the drain. (And, no, I don’t work for TW or MWE) Reply Link Barry Mafia 16 December 2008 at 15:37 Corrections & Apologies Oops – just checked, and RIM spent £6million in revoking Visto’s patent, and not in saving its own patent. Reply Link Fil 17 December 2008 at 13:43 a win is never just a win Headhunter is still missing something: it is one thing when a client is happy with a bill and is prepared to pay it, as may be the case in transactional work. It is quite another when the costs are awarded to one side as part of a judgment because the other side had lost the argument. When one side spends 10 times as the other just because the lawyers are more expensive, it creates a massive disincentive to ever sue any big company in England, because of the financial risks involved (even when you win, because you can still gets costs award against you). Reply Link Anonymous 18 December 2008 at 15:14 counsel’s fees does the £6m include counsel’s fees? If so, (and even if not) how much did they amount to? Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.