Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Spring Update

IT IS ORDERED THAT: No later than seven days from the date of filing of this order, the parties are directed to file their motions, including any motion to stay these appeals. For now, the briefing schedule remains stayed. 
See Here

SkunK

7 comments:

nobody123789 said...

There is significant information embedded in this short filing/order. It appears that Judge Stoll is the primary reviewer. (ultimately a three judge panel will decide the appeal -- I think). http://cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/kara-farnandez-stoll-circuit-judge

It also appears that Judge Stoll wants to get this moving -- JUST SEVEN DAYS TO GET THEIR MOTIONS FILED!

Also notice that Judge Stoll worked as a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 1991 to 1997. I suspect that this means that Judge Stoll has a little more respect for the professional judgements of the USPTO than McKinney did -- which will be important to our appeal. It certainly means that Judge Stoll has more knowledge about the patent process and patent law than Mckinney did -- which is both the heart and soul of the appeal.

So to my ignorant eyes, the tea leaves say -- there is more here than just an innocuous house keeping order.

Anonymous said...

All very interesting, and something seemingly in our favor for once. Rest assured the defendants are keenly aware of the background of Judge Stoll and can't be too comfortable about it. But then again, arrogance has a funny way of clogging the thought process...

Any seasoned judge, especially with a USPTO background, knows the strategy of "bleed the inventor" so the accelerated timeframe, 7 Days is relatively quick, is in our favor. Let's see if the defendants ask for more time. And if they do, what the response from Judge Stoll is. I can't see GERS's legal team asking for more time, at least they better not!!!!

Anonymous said...

Both good analysis.

nobody123789 said...

It is also informative that Judge Stoll's undergraduate study was in engineering. Many of the successful IP attorneys have technical backgrounds that allow them to NOT to be snowed by what others glaze over as "technical mumbo jumbo". In other words, execution and application of technical law to technical products will be well served by Judge Stoll -- and that will serve us well.

I agree that the defendants may see "the hand writing on the wall". I sincerely hope that we are not duped again by their entelechy inducement for further settlement discussions. Without a doubt finalizing the appeal is in our best interest for many reasons.

Anonymous said...

Today is the 7th day, will we see PACERS?

nobody123789 said...

The latest filing is very important.

We are at our first critical juncture! According to GERS if this motion is not approved we have LOST EVERYTHING. GERS is "at the mercy of this Court". There are 44 separate issues that GERS must convince this Court were adjudicated incorrectly in the lower courts or GERS loses EVERYTHING! According GERS is requesting the brief limit be lifted from 14,000 to 42,000 words, a very unusual request. (Note that would represent at least 140 pages of material).

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/2a6a5fd9-3926-48ae-af50-d05760b5aa43 PLUS another 634 pages of supporting material that I have not downloaded.

Not surprisingly, the Appellees are going to oppose this motion. If they are successful, according to GERS' own words, the litigation is over in favor of the defendants (Appellees) and GERS (we too) have lost everything.

I do not know if this is litigation brinkmanship, but the tone is very negative -- IF this motion is not approved this will " ... leave CleanTech with no choice but to concede liability...".

This is the language they (we) are up against Federal Circuit Rule 28(c): "Motion to File Extended Brief. The court looks with disfavor on a motion to file an extended brief and grants it only for extraordinary reasons. Unless the order granting a motion to file an extended brief provides otherwise, when additional pages or words are allowed in the principal brief of an appellant or cross-appellant, a responsive brief permitted by the rules may contain the same number of additional pages or words".


As Slashnuts says -- Good luck to us -- we are going to need it!

nobody123789 said...

Another factoid as the Skunk likes to call them:

Judge Stoll was part of the critical July 2016 Federal Circuit appellate panel in Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc. that determined that an offer to test is NOT an offer to sell and therefore does not violate the "on sale bar".

If you are a GERSlander and have been following, you will understand the importance of these facts.


 
Free Blog CounterTamron