[micahgoulart]

I think Newegg was complacent, perhaps a bit cocky, bringing in the expert on encryption, pandering to the jury and going through a humorous exchange on his knowledge of it, thinking they had it in the bag after the shopping cart win.

And then the defense surprisingly declined at the end to rebut the damages claim of $5.1 million:

"Then came another stunner: Newegg rested its case. It did so without putting on its expert witness to rebut TQP's $5.1 million damage claim—even though documents in the court docket clearly indicate the company had such a witness."

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-trial-cryp...

[ScottBurson]

They had planned to appeal anyway if they lost. Getting a damage award reduced on appeal is relatively common. And the problem with taking about the award amount after arguing that the patent is flat-out invalid is that one can seem to be conceding the infringement argument.

IANAL, but it seems like a reasonable gamble to me.

[WildUtah]

Newegg's strategy is to invalidate patents in order to discourage future litigants.

Just winning a cheaper verdict today won't reduce their costs in the long run by much. The PTO issues hundreds or thousands of new patents every year on business processes Newegg is already using so there's no limit on potential future litigation.

[erichurkman]

Could NewEgg simply be wanting to escalate their appeal to a higher court, and thus have their eventual verdict carry more weight? This operates on the gamble that NewEgg believes they would be eventually triumphant and that the cost of a longer fight is less than the damages of a lower court. (Speculation, but perhaps reasonable, given NewEgg's previous victories.)

[talmand]

Don't forget going to a higher court will likely get the case out of that district's court.