|
Allen v. World - RECONSIDERATION DENIED! Interval Down in Flames |
|
Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 03:45 PM EDT
|
Remember the cartoonish sound ballons that were displayed during fight scenes in the old Batman TV series?
BAM! BOP! SMASH!
That's what came to mind reading the court's Order Denying Reconsideration in the Interval Licensing case. It is also clear that Judge Pechman is getting tired of Interval's inability to stay with the script. (See, A Pattern Of Do-overs)
Plaintiff filed a reply brief, which the Court did not request. (Dkt. No. 257.) The Court
does not consider the matters set forth in the reply brief because the Court did not authorize the
submission of the reply brief. See Local Rule CR 7(h)(3).
When you see a judge being that critical of a party and using words later in the order like "quibbles," it is a sign the judge is losing patience.
So this action is now officially (even after reconsideration) stayed pending the outcome of the reexaminations.
Judge Pechman then proceeds to adopt the arguments of the defendants almost in their entirety. Here is the Order:
**************
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
INTERVAL LICENSING LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
AOL, INC.,
Defendant.
CASE NO. C10-1385 MJP
ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No.
254.) Having reviewed the motion and the response (Dkt. No. 256), the Court DENIES the
motion. Plaintiff filed a reply brief, which the Court did not request. (Dkt. No. 257.) The Court does not consider the matters set forth in the reply brief because the Court did not authorize the
submission of the reply brief. See Local Rule CR 7(h)(3).
Analysis
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this District. Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). “The
court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its
attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. Plaintiff does not acknowledge this standard.
Instead, Plaintiff argues more generally that certain “new facts warrant reconsideration.” (Dkt.
No. 254 at 3.)
The facts Plaintiff presents in its motion for reconsideration do not appear to be new facts
that Plaintiff could not have raised when it filed its opposition to the motion to stay. When it
filed its opposition brief to the motion to stay on June 6, 2011, Plaintiff chose to refer the Court
to its March 28, 2011 brief to oppose the motion to stay. (Dkt. No. 246 (citing Dkt. No. 206).)
Plaintiff now argues that it had engaged in substantially more work than it cited in its March
briefing. Yet, nowhere does Plaintiff explain why it failed to bring those facts to the Court’s
attention on June 6, 2011, when it filed its opposition to the motion to stay. If this information is
as critical as Plaintiff contends, Plaintiff should have presented it when presented the opportunity
in June. Raising the matters now with no explanation as to why it could not have been raised
earlier is no basis for obtaining reconsideration. This alone warrants denial of the motion for
reconsideration.
Even if the Court considers the work expended on briefing the Markman issues and
discovery, it does not find that time spent is a compelling reason to deny the stay. Crucially,
Plaintiff has failed to show why any of the work will be lost pending the outcome of reexamination. That some review work of source code may need to be repeated is not sufficient
alone to warrant reconsideration. The additional expenditure of time now raised to the Court’s
attention does not convince the Court of any manifest error in its decision to stay the case.
Plaintiff also argues that its experts retained to review source code will be prejudiced by
virtue of the stay because they have agreed to a patent prosecution bar until one year after
resolution of the case. (Dkt. No. 254 at 5.) The Court is not convinced that this narrow patent
prosecution bar merits reconsideration. First, the protective order was entered on April 14, 2011,
and Plaintiff could have pointed to its restrictive clause when it filed its opposition to the motion
to stay. This is not a new fact that could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier.
Second, the restriction itself does not convince the Court that the stay was improperly issued.
That an expert faces a limited patent prosecution bar for the pendency of this litigation does
factor into whether the Court should have issued the stay. Presumably, the restriction to which
the experts choose to submit is more than offset by the benefit of generating substantial income
by rendering expert services.
Plaintiff also quibbles with the Court’s statement that “Defendants have presented a
substantial body of prior art that they believe will reshape the four patents at issue in this
litigation.” (Dkt. No. 254 at 6 (quoting Dkt. No. 253 at 2).) Plaintiff admits that although the
examiner has granted reexamination on fewer references than Defendants reported “the examiner
is not precluded from relying on the other references.” (Id.) This does not show any manifest
error.
The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff has failed to show any
manifest error in the order granting the stay or any new facts that could not have been brought to
the Court’s attention earlier that compel the Court to reconsider its order.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
Dated this 12th day of July, 2011.
/s/ Marsha J. Pechman
Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge
************
Docket Update
07/12/2011 - 258 - ORDER
Denying Plaintiff's (254) Motion for Reconsideration, by Judge Marsha J.
Pechman. ( Order posted in C10-1385MJP and all related actions) (CL)
(Entered: 07/12/2011)
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
Shades of SCO! Looks like not all judges are as patient as Kimball and
Stewart...
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
... these very tricks worked so well when we were paying SCO to use them try to
bury Linux in a cloud of FUD! Why can't we use them here to generate another
cloud of FUD? If all judges acted like this then we would be forced to compete
on the technical merits of our products. It's not fair!
--- [ ] Obey
DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
When you post a correction, please change the Title box to a summary of the
error->correction or s/error/correction/ to make it easy for Mark to scan
over what needs to be changed and for others to see at a glance if an error they
have found has already been reported.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
Linkies please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
Please stay off topic in these threads. For extra fun use HTML Formatted mode
and make your links clickable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Precedent May Soon Be Set Regarding Your Right To Remain Encrypted - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- Symphony contribution - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 10:05 PM EDT
- Symphony contribution - Authored by: kjs on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 10:39 PM EDT
- Symphony contribution - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 12:41 AM EDT
- Please post final links - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- long link - Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- long link - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 07:19 PM EDT
- long link - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 11:43 PM EDT
- long link - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2011 @ 04:12 AM EDT
- long link - Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 15 2011 @ 12:43 AM EDT
- Irony - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- Irony - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- Irony - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 07:37 PM EDT
- Irony - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 08:53 PM EDT
- Irony - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 10:22 PM EDT
- Irony - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 10:32 PM EDT
- Irony - Authored by: Tyro on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- Symphony contribution - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 10:41 PM EDT
- Symphony contribution - Authored by: jjs on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 06:01 AM EDT
- FCC nonsense - LightSquared - Authored by: kjs on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 10:26 PM EDT
- “American Legislative Exchange Council” (ALEC) - and you thought the ACTA 'process' was bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 11:01 PM EDT
- Is a server a business presence? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 05:39 AM EDT
- Apple infringed patents for downloadable playlist - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- A committee, yeah, that's the ticket! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 02:08 PM EDT
- Righthaven remains clueless - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM EDT
- US court says software is owned, not licensed - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Blackwater Xe Lawsuits - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 08:52 PM EDT
- Libre office must die - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- U.S. defense secrets stolen in cyber attacks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2011 @ 12:08 AM EDT
- Michael Geist to Xplornet: your PR release was unnecessary & inconsistent with the public record - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 15 2011 @ 12:34 AM EDT
- Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Revealed - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, July 15 2011 @ 01:31 AM EDT
|
Authored by: keds on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
I've done a better job litigating <I>pro se</I> in federal court
than Paul Allen's high-priced lawyers have. I'm mildly surprised the judge
didn't sanction their butts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
The plaintiff arguments were a moving target. It is hard on
the defendants, and it is also hard on the judge. (E.g.
"Raising the matters now with no explanation as to why it
could not have been raised earlier".) The judge wants to
run a courtroom, not a three ring circus. The stay is a good,
and legal, way to take a cool off period. In addition the
judge sent the plaintiff a pretty clear message: "This
court has rules. Follow them." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, July 13 2011 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
Plaintiff also quibbles with the Court’s statement that “Defendants have
presented a substantial body of prior art that they believe will reshape the
four patents at issue in this litigation.”
What's next :)
DSM
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 06:30 AM EDT |
That's an english colloquialism for smashed/beated/broken and or very drunk.
I'm wondering if its homophone is gradually merging with it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Mullered! - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 07:42 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 06:31 AM EDT |
When a patent is examined, the examiner can nod it through, but has to give
reasons for rejection. They also consider the inventor their customer.
Then the courts have a presumption of validity, so that the patent never gets
the review it needs, until the defendant has to show clear and convincing
evidence of invalidity.
It seems to me (IANAL, and here in the Untied Kingdom) that this violates the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Cheers
Hugh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, July 14 2011 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
Steelie
Neelie: 'Help us form Brussels data breach policy --- RMS: The 4
Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Friday, July 15 2011 @ 04:23 AM EDT |
Post them here with the title and an active hyperlink to the article.
---
Here's where you can get the computer RMS uses:
http://freedomincluded.com/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|