//
you're reading...
IP, Patent

Patent Sausage Epilogue

In the spirit of my earlier post about the fight between Google and Interval, I came across an interesting quote from Judge Leonard Davis.  After agreeing, just like the Judge Pechman in the Interval case, that the complaint failed to satisfy the technical requirements of the federal rules, Judge Davis couldn’t help but offer the following commentary:

The Court notes that Bedrock served its Patent Rule 3-1 disclosures while this motion was being briefed. Rule 3-1 disclosures are far more detailed than Rule 8’s pleading requirements. Thus, before this motion was fully briefed, Defendants had already received greater specificity than what they sought in this motion, rendering this motion superfluous for all practical purposes. The Court strongly encourages the parties to try this case on the merits and not unnecessarily burden the Court with technical issues that lack practical substance.

(Legal types can find by looking for: Bedrock Computer Techs., LLC v. Softlayer Techs. Inc., CASE NO. 609 CV 269 (March 29, 2010).

Advertisements

Discussion

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Patent Sausage Epilogue « Gametime IP -- Topsy.com - December 14, 2010

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: