#civpromatters — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #civpromatters, aggregated by home.social.
-
Friends from #AppellateTwitter may remember the personal jurisdiction appeal noted in this footnote. #CivProMatters
-
Another good #ScheduleA joinder decision, this time out of SDFL. #PermissiveJoinder #CivProMatters
-
Another good #ScheduleA joinder decision, this time out of SDFL. #PermissiveJoinder #CivProMatters
-
Another good #ScheduleA joinder decision, this time out of SDFL. #PermissiveJoinder #CivProMatters
-
Another good #ScheduleA joinder decision, this time out of SDFL. #PermissiveJoinder #CivProMatters
-
Another good #ScheduleA joinder decision, this time out of SDFL. #PermissiveJoinder #CivProMatters
-
This part, though, is really something. Basically: "We want to sue 1,907 people and we filed them in five separate cases to spare YOU, THE COURT the burden of 1,907 separate cases."
Oh, please.
-
This part, though, is really something. Basically: "We want to sue 1,907 people and we filed them in five separate cases to spare YOU, THE COURT the burden of 1,907 separate cases."
Oh, please.
-
This part, though, is really something. Basically: "We want to sue 1,907 people and we filed them in five separate cases to spare YOU, THE COURT the burden of 1,907 separate cases."
Oh, please.
-
This part, though, is really something. Basically: "We want to sue 1,907 people and we filed them in five separate cases to spare YOU, THE COURT the burden of 1,907 separate cases."
Oh, please.
-
This part, though, is really something. Basically: "We want to sue 1,907 people and we filed them in five separate cases to spare YOU, THE COURT the burden of 1,907 separate cases."
Oh, please.
-
SDFL judge orders Tesla to "file a Notice of Related Action by the close of business on May 13, 2024 identifying the four other related actions pending in the Southern District of Florida, along with a brief explanation why those claims and defendants were not included in the instant [#ScheduleA] case."
In response, the plaintiff explains how it grouped defendants as follows:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250.34.0.pdf
-
SDFL judge orders Tesla to "file a Notice of Related Action by the close of business on May 13, 2024 identifying the four other related actions pending in the Southern District of Florida, along with a brief explanation why those claims and defendants were not included in the instant [#ScheduleA] case."
In response, the plaintiff explains how it grouped defendants as follows:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250.34.0.pdf
-
SDFL judge orders Tesla to "file a Notice of Related Action by the close of business on May 13, 2024 identifying the four other related actions pending in the Southern District of Florida, along with a brief explanation why those claims and defendants were not included in the instant [#ScheduleA] case."
In response, the plaintiff explains how it grouped defendants as follows:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250.34.0.pdf
-
SDFL judge orders Tesla to "file a Notice of Related Action by the close of business on May 13, 2024 identifying the four other related actions pending in the Southern District of Florida, along with a brief explanation why those claims and defendants were not included in the instant [#ScheduleA] case."
In response, the plaintiff explains how it grouped defendants as follows:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250.34.0.pdf
-
SDFL judge orders Tesla to "file a Notice of Related Action by the close of business on May 13, 2024 identifying the four other related actions pending in the Southern District of Florida, along with a brief explanation why those claims and defendants were not included in the instant [#ScheduleA] case."
In response, the plaintiff explains how it grouped defendants as follows:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250/gov.uscourts.flsd.665250.34.0.pdf
-
#LawStudentNote idea: Does the "swarm" joinder theory set forth in the Bose case make sense for #ScheduleA cases? If so, what kind of showing should be required of the plaintiff?
Bose Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. 2020).
See also Roadget v. Schedule A, 2024 WL 1858592, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (distinguishing Bose).
-
#LawStudentNote idea: Does the "swarm" joinder theory set forth in the Bose case make sense for #ScheduleA cases? If so, what kind of showing should be required of the plaintiff?
Bose Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. 2020).
See also Roadget v. Schedule A, 2024 WL 1858592, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (distinguishing Bose).
-
#LawStudentNote idea: Does the "swarm" joinder theory set forth in the Bose case make sense for #ScheduleA cases? If so, what kind of showing should be required of the plaintiff?
Bose Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. 2020).
See also Roadget v. Schedule A, 2024 WL 1858592, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (distinguishing Bose).
-
#LawStudentNote idea: Does the "swarm" joinder theory set forth in the Bose case make sense for #ScheduleA cases? If so, what kind of showing should be required of the plaintiff?
Bose Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. 2020).
See also Roadget v. Schedule A, 2024 WL 1858592, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (distinguishing Bose).
-
#LawStudentNote idea: Does the "swarm" joinder theory set forth in the Bose case make sense for #ScheduleA cases? If so, what kind of showing should be required of the plaintiff?
Bose Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. 2020).
See also Roadget v. Schedule A, 2024 WL 1858592, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (distinguishing Bose).
-
Another good joinder decision out of the NDIL, this time from Judge Pacold:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648.10.0_2.pdf
-
Another good joinder decision out of the NDIL, this time from Judge Pacold:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648.10.0_2.pdf
-
Another good joinder decision out of the NDIL, this time from Judge Pacold:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648.10.0_2.pdf
-
Another good joinder decision out of the NDIL, this time from Judge Pacold:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648.10.0_2.pdf
-
Another good joinder decision out of the NDIL, this time from Judge Pacold:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648/gov.uscourts.ilnd.454648.10.0_2.pdf
-
Another good #ScheduleA decision on #PermissiveJoinder, this time out of SDFL:
Peleg Design v. Schedule A, No. 1:23-CV-24672, 2024 WL 1759139, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2024)https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003.18.0.pdf
The downside here: Because the judge dismissed the case without prejudice, the plaintiff can simply refile and hope to draw a judge who doesn't care (or notice) these problems.
-
Another good #ScheduleA decision on #PermissiveJoinder, this time out of SDFL:
Peleg Design v. Schedule A, No. 1:23-CV-24672, 2024 WL 1759139, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2024)https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003.18.0.pdf
The downside here: Because the judge dismissed the case without prejudice, the plaintiff can simply refile and hope to draw a judge who doesn't care (or notice) these problems.
-
Another good #ScheduleA decision on #PermissiveJoinder, this time out of SDFL:
Peleg Design v. Schedule A, No. 1:23-CV-24672, 2024 WL 1759139, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2024)https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003.18.0.pdf
The downside here: Because the judge dismissed the case without prejudice, the plaintiff can simply refile and hope to draw a judge who doesn't care (or notice) these problems.
-
Another good #ScheduleA decision on #PermissiveJoinder, this time out of SDFL:
Peleg Design v. Schedule A, No. 1:23-CV-24672, 2024 WL 1759139, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2024)https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003.18.0.pdf
The downside here: Because the judge dismissed the case without prejudice, the plaintiff can simply refile and hope to draw a judge who doesn't care (or notice) these problems.
-
Another good #ScheduleA decision on #PermissiveJoinder, this time out of SDFL:
Peleg Design v. Schedule A, No. 1:23-CV-24672, 2024 WL 1759139, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2024)https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003/gov.uscourts.flsd.659003.18.0.pdf
The downside here: Because the judge dismissed the case without prejudice, the plaintiff can simply refile and hope to draw a judge who doesn't care (or notice) these problems.
-
E-Link v. #ScheduleA - In a patent case (what kind of patent case? we can't tell because of all the sealing), Judge Cummings denies permissive joinder. Then, when the case is dumped on a new judge, that new judge (Harjani) adopts the Judge Hunt "Ali Baba" rule (40 is okay, for some reason). Neither judge mentions 35 U.S.C. § 299.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68092739/e-link-plastic-metal-industrial-co-ltd/
-
E-Link v. #ScheduleA - In a patent case (what kind of patent case? we can't tell because of all the sealing), Judge Cummings denies permissive joinder. Then, when the case is dumped on a new judge, that new judge (Harjani) adopts the Judge Hunt "Ali Baba" rule (40 is okay, for some reason). Neither judge mentions 35 U.S.C. § 299.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68092739/e-link-plastic-metal-industrial-co-ltd/
-
E-Link v. #ScheduleA - In a patent case (what kind of patent case? we can't tell because of all the sealing), Judge Cummings denies permissive joinder. Then, when the case is dumped on a new judge, that new judge (Harjani) adopts the Judge Hunt "Ali Baba" rule (40 is okay, for some reason). Neither judge mentions 35 U.S.C. § 299.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68092739/e-link-plastic-metal-industrial-co-ltd/
-
E-Link v. #ScheduleA - In a patent case (what kind of patent case? we can't tell because of all the sealing), Judge Cummings denies permissive joinder. Then, when the case is dumped on a new judge, that new judge (Harjani) adopts the Judge Hunt "Ali Baba" rule (40 is okay, for some reason). Neither judge mentions 35 U.S.C. § 299.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68092739/e-link-plastic-metal-industrial-co-ltd/
-
E-Link v. #ScheduleA - In a patent case (what kind of patent case? we can't tell because of all the sealing), Judge Cummings denies permissive joinder. Then, when the case is dumped on a new judge, that new judge (Harjani) adopts the Judge Hunt "Ali Baba" rule (40 is okay, for some reason). Neither judge mentions 35 U.S.C. § 299.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68092739/e-link-plastic-metal-industrial-co-ltd/
-
Judge in the WDPA denies motion for service by email on a Chinese defendant, where the plaintiff knows the defendant's address and has not adequately shown an urgency:
https://www.scribd.com/document/705209698/D-Squared-v-Guangdong-Bixing-Trading-Alt-service-WDPA
This isn't a #ScheduleA case but the discussion of China & the Hague Service Convention are relevant to those cases.
#CivProMatters #PatentFedi #ServiceByEmail #HagueServiceConvention
-
New #ScheduleA scholarship: "A SAD New Category of Abusive Intellectual Property Litigation" by @ericgoldman: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4381824
#LawProfs #LawFedi #Scholarship #IPScholarship #CivPro #CivProMatters
-
Some of you might remember that the parties previously litigated this issue in Colorado.
The district court, like the TTAB, concluded that the color pink was functional. https://www.scribd.com/document/335930110/C5-Med-Werks-v-Ceramtec-Order
The 10th Circuit didn't reach the trademark issue because it concluded that the District Court didn't have personal jurisdiction over CeramTec: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110226021.pdf
#CeramTec #PinkHipImplants #Functionality #TradeDress #CivProMatters
-
And here is the (really extraordinary) response: https://www.scribd.com/document/615796455/Blue-Sphere-v-Schedule-A-Plaintiff-statement-re-dismissals