Hopefully Judge Grewel will deny Acer/HTC motion for Summary Judgment and allow this case to go to trial.
In the words of Jim Otteson
B. The Claims and Counterclaims Pursued by and Plaintiffs and Defendants
Are Mirror Images Of Each Other.
As this Court is well aware, Acer and HTC originally filed these related cases as
declaratory judgment action. Defendants’ counterclaims assert that Acer and HTC infringe the
’749, ’890, ’336 and/or ’148 patents. Plaintiffs will obviously defend against Defendants’
counterclaims by arguing that the patents are not infringed and/or are invalid. For their
affirmative “claims,” Acer and HTC simply seek declarations that they do not infringe the
patents, and/or that the patents are invalid.
Thus, viewed from either perspective, the Court must ultimately rule on the infringement
and validity of the asserted patents. A ruling on either the claims or the counterclaims will
entirely resolve the issues in the case – except for the issue of damages, which is only a
component of Defendants’ counterclaims (which are not automatically stayed under Section
362), but not Plaintiffs’ affirmative declaratory judgment claims.
http://photos.imageevent.com/banos/t3/Letter%20from%20James%20C.%20Otteson%20to%20Magistrate%20Judge%20Paul%20S.%20Grewal%20re%20Effect%20of%20Automatic%20Stay%203-29-13.pdf
