Free
Message: Re: PACER
21
Nov 09, 2010 08:49PM
14
Nov 09, 2010 08:56PM
13
Nov 09, 2010 08:59PM
13
Nov 09, 2010 09:01PM
11
Nov 09, 2010 09:05PM
13
Nov 09, 2010 09:08PM
5
Nov 09, 2010 09:28PM
2
Nov 09, 2010 09:43PM
5
Nov 09, 2010 11:57PM
5
Nov 10, 2010 12:21AM
12
Nov 10, 2010 08:06AM
6
Nov 10, 2010 08:32AM

These guys want to settle, well, at least some. From this it appears all are not going the distance, if any.

DM is perceived as putting forth a "complex" patent case. There is a method to the madness.

RE: "the potentially unnecessary discovery burdens"...raise the bar !

All they have to do is write the check and we will go away, and that's exactly where this looks to be headed.

Defendants’ Statement and Proposal:
Defendants believe that a claim construction order from the Court would narrow the
issues in dispute, decrease the scope of discovery necessary for trial, and likely lead to settlement or resolution of the case with respect to at least some of the Defendants. Defendants further believe that there is a significant likelihood that a claim construction order from the Court could be dispositive as to Defendants’ liability on one or both of the patents-in-suit, rendering the damages and willfulness cases moot. Accordingly, Defendants’ proposed schedule seeks phased discovery, staggering the timings of discovery on liability issues and discovery on damages and willfulness issues based on the date of the Court’s claim construction order. Defendants believe that such sequencing of discovery schedule will help streamline this complex patent case
involving a large number of defendants from all over the world and numerous accused products. Furthermore, it will minimize the potentially unnecessary discovery burdens on all parties if the Court’s claim construction order is case dispositive.

7
Nov 10, 2010 01:18PM
6
Nov 10, 2010 01:36PM
13
Nov 10, 2010 02:11PM
5
Nov 10, 2010 02:20PM
4
Nov 10, 2010 02:58PM
3
Nov 10, 2010 03:51PM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply