Order

News is coming fast now.  Here is a schedule with a warning.

"The court notes the parties' agreement to produce to one another copies of all documents obtained from non-parties and assumes that any variance from this agreement will be based on subsequent agreement of counsel or by protective
order."

I think this is a reference to the defendants' questioning of one of the inventors.  The defendants' ambush APPARENTLY made an impression on the judge.

This is how the SkunK strings the beads we know together:

ICM declared in a Press Release they had information they had not showed the court.  It appears they were saving it to spring it on the inventor during disposition.  They did.  The inventor's lawyer told him not to answer any questions since the defendants apparently had not fulfilled their duty to share information during discovery.  The defendants' were hoping for some kind of Perry Mason moment.  Having failed that, the defendants complained to the judge who had now publicly reminded them of their duty to share.

These upcoming briefs will be fascinating - you can then see if I beaded together a necklace or a knapsack of wet goat hair.
SkunK