Sunday, May 26, 2013

Local Litigation

I see there is some appropriate discussion about why local attorneys are filing these new litigation filings and what this means?  First of all I speak with no authority or inside information on this subject but I do remember what happened in the past.  Local attorneys are on the ground and have the standing to file in their local District Court.  I think it is as simple as that.  We have the world sitting in a box on our desk, but some things are still limited by physical location.  I believe standing and filing in the United States Eastern District Court of California are one of those things. 

Here is an example of what I am talking about.  See Here  This was the first GERS filing for these particular defendants from three years ago - done by a local lawyer in the Minnesota Federal District Court.  This was the second filing.

Unlike this example case, I believe it is far too late to get this new case conjoined with the others in the present MDL case.  I believe that is why Colburn is not included in the bottom left hand corner (like my examples) of the new litigation.  Although this will not move on to the MDL case - it will be affected by it.  With all favorable MARKMAN rulings in the bag, I agree NOW is the time to file on additional infringers. New cases will have to depend on the precedent of these previous MARKMAN rulings - and MARKMAN rulings are the key to successful litigation/settlements.



nobody123789 said...

Well thought-out and stated. Any thoughts as to where the funds are going come from to pay for a new law firm?

I believe that the facts are different in this situation versus the one you reference: Gustafson Gluek PLLC, that carried the first filings FOR Cantor & Colburn have extensive experience in IP (patent) law, which is evidenced on their web site. The new firm in Sacramento handling the PEIX filing has no listed experience in IP law (based upon their website)and does NOT seem to be filing FOR Cantor & Colburn.

This situation appears to be fundamentally different in these two respects and begs the question of how a new retainer and upfront legal fees are going to be paid for during this second front. I am hoping that this means that a cash settlement in the MDL litigation is near otherwise, I am afraid that we are going to get buried in new shares.

Abe said...

Thanks SkunK. Well thought out. Those of you that are new to GERS, "nobody 123789" is a paid basher - this is his 16th post so far this weekend. All negative (although he pretends he is neutral).

Be advised.
Abe L.

nobody123789 said...

Again, all this Abraham does is attempt to discredit posts not to his liking and he never responds to the substance of these posts. It appears that he is incapable of thoughtful integration of the facts at hand. Do not confuse him with other reputable and legendary stalwarts of a similar name. This Abraham is NOT a scion of those, not even close.

Anonymous said...

They use local counsel for administrative (low cost) services such as filing complaints, service of process, etc. Cantor does all of the heavy lifting under its contingency deal with GreenShift. Go back and look at every complaint filed against all current defendants. Same thing. Also, if skunk is right in his guess that it is too late to combine, then we could be looking at a second wave that would have cost and time savings benefits from the successes from the first wave.

nobody123789 said...

When you go back and review all the filings in this litigation you find that except for the first two in the MDL litigation they were filed by Cantor & Colburn; and the first two were by an IP firm FOR Cantor & Cclburn.

Anonymous said...

after reviewing filings that have so far been up your ass i think its safe to assume you would swallow any rationale for new litigation.

Free Blog CounterTamron