Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I’m not really interested in a debate with someone about a stock that has a .0002 pps. Bottom line that you keep overlooking as it relates to the patent case. PM can’t sell iQOS in the US. There are very little damages and no money from this for HCMC until PM resumes sales.
This is my last post. This board doesn’t deserve opinions from a lawyer or my caliber. Good luck to you. Will be back if the pps gets over a penny,
Deceive? Lol.
The 20000 is from a CNBC article. Ignore it if you want but that’s what I read. Read it for yourself:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/11/08/philip-morris-international-meets-with-fda-to-make-its-case-for-iqos-in-patent-dispute.html
Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? No. They don’t. They just don’t want to believe it because they don’t like it.
Anyway. I am done wasting my time on this subject. It doesn’t matter. The current sales are zero. You are all missing the point.
The point was/is, you can get a reasonable royalty for the life of the patent. For example, 5% or 10% of all sales for up to twenty years. Over time that can become an astronomical number. That’s why they need PM to resume sales. The 20000 they sold is a non event. An appeal is dumb. Only Cozen would suggest doing it,
Courts get reversed all the time, especially on a decision like this refusing to grant the right to amend. But the more significant issue is whether it is even worth the time and expense.
About the money PM already made, I read somewhere they only had 20000 users in the US. So how many devices is that? 20000? How much does each device cost? even if they were 100 dollars each, which i think is high, then you are talking about 2 million dollars. But HCMC is only entitled to reasonably royalties (i doubt they could show lost profits). But either way, it is not a couple billion. It is more like 5% of 2 million or if they got lost profits (which is a real legal stretch here), maybe 500k at the most. We'd need to know how much the thing costs to make to even get lost profits because you need to back out the cost of goods sold. But you get the picture. Is it worth it? Probably not unless PM resumes sales.
HCMC can sell what they want in the US. There is no ban on them. It is PM that is banned for the moment.
I wouldn't agree with the proposition that "appeals are rarely successful." Judges make wrong decisions all of the time and they get reversed fairly frequently.
The problem with the appeal here is Cozen O'Connor. Sort of unbelievable that HCMC would consider keeping them. The loss below was caused by none other than Cozen O'Connor's stupidity in attaching evidence that, when credited, disproves HCMC's case.
That being said, HCMC now has to decide whether they want to revive a case accusing a product that is no longer sold in the United States of infringement of a United States Patent. Honestly, it makes no sense unless PM resumes sales.
The decision is not with prejudice. There has been no finding that the patent is not infringed. The case can be refiled. But why would HCMC do that when PM is not even selling the product here.
Now, HCMC has to potentially defend an IPR all for nothing. Now HCMC might take an appeal just to bring a case back against a product that is not even sold in the US and therefore creates very little in damages and recovery. Thanks Cozen O'Connor. Yes, HCMC, see what Cozen O'Connor advises. It has worked out so great thus far.
The most laughable part of Judge Batten's decision to dump the case is where he justifies his conclusion to dump the case based on the FDA documents with the following statement "the court cannot ignore what is in front of it", referring to Exhibit J. But nowhere does the court address the expert evidence of combustion. In other words, the court did exactly what the court said it could not do, i.e., "ignore what is in front of it." He ignored the expert evidence. So he can't "unsee" the FDA docs but he can totally ignore the expert evidence. It makes no sense. Batten elevated to primary significance a wholly conclusory statement in an FDA document while ingoring actual differential scanning calorimetry data provided by a PHD/Chemist that contradicted the conclusory statement that he cited as the basis for the dismissal. That created an issue of fact that should not be resolved on a Motion to Dismiss. Bottom line, Batten just cherry picked what he wanted to cherry pick and then decided based on that. That's your appeal. But does it matter? None of this matters at the moment. PM is not selling this product in the US. Very little damages at the moment. Very little can be recovered at the moment. That is the larger more strategic problem.
I'm still here. There is nothing changed on the docket. All of the docs are there. The problem someone found is with Pacer Monitor which is a third party. You generally cannot remove documents filed with Court.
The situation here is fairly dismal and the stock price reflects that. Unfortunately for us the Biden admin has declined to intervene in the IQOS ban, so hopefully Altria/PM will be moving manufacturing to the US.
Not sure that the acquisition of an IV clinic that probably generates 300k per year (i am guessing at the number) is gonna make a difference.
i'm here. just nothing to do but wait at this point.
They don’t have to buy the holding company. They can if they want but they can also buy some of the parents separately and individually.
The injunction on sales was to be expected. That’s what happens when you lose a case in the ITC as PM did.
If the holding company is solely owned by HCMC then any money would flow to HCMC. That is how I see it usually
I think it is a negative for our damages in this litigation (because the royalty is calculated on the US sales and if there are no US sales, well, you do the math), but could be a positive incentive for PM to acquire HCMC's patents. I said this very early on this year; PM should acquire the patents for their war against BAT and RJR.
hello. i just watched it. The gist I got from it is that the response is not required and could hurt so why bother if it is not required. While it is true that a response is not required, that kind of thinking can infect every part of litigation. An opposition is not required to any motion. A reply is not required to any opposition. Why do any of these things? You do these things because you do not let your opponent have the last word on anything. To not take an opportunity to respond to something is really a continuation of this defensive do nothing attitude of Cozen and HCMC here. They need to go on the offense. And as a plaintiff, we need to be on the offense at all times.
Jawsomesauce said he was quoting or summarizing commentary from practitioners in the field. And that kind of non-committal thinking on the part of these commentators is something that is common amongst patent prosecutors (lawyers who get patents), who are usually involved in these IPRs. Patent prosecutors are not litigators. It is a different skill and strategy and way of thinking. Patent prosecutors are non-committal. And you can see it happening here. But it is not a very effective litigation strategy. Sure, Cozen decided to do nothing here. Cozen also put a half baked opposition in against the Motion to Dismiss, and look at where that got us. They are not on the offense. Had they gone on the offense in the first place, procured expert declarations and submitted competent evidence in opposition to the motion to dismiss, we would probably be moving into discovery with a much more elevated stock price at this point. After doing nothing on the Motion to Dismiss, the judge dismissed the case. Then Cozen starts begging for more time on the Motion to Amend because they do not have their act together. On the reply to the Motion to Amend the complaint, Cozen should have doubled down and gone for the throat (so to speak) with additional responsive materials and more declarations responding to the bs that was in the PM's opposition. What did Cozen need the extra time for? Put that in the reply for god's sake. Instead they sat on their hands again.
Now they're doing it again. Let's do nothing here and see what happens. Well, they did nothing on the Motion to Dismiss and we saw what happened.
Cozen's do as little as possible attitude has been nothing short of painful. And they are continuing that do nothing attitude into the IPR.
Another thing that I disagree with in Jawsomesauce's post is that, according to him "HCMC and PM both have the best lawyers" (that's paraphrased but he said it a few times). That is just not true. Cozen is not in the same league as Latham and Weil. Cozen needs to work twice as hard; not half as hard. They are the weaker set of lawyers and it shows.
Hello.
Is it possible they did not respond because there is a potential settlement being discussed?
It's highly unlikely, in my opinion, that they didn't respond because there is a potential settlement being discussed. Anything is possible of course, but PM has now managed to have the case dismissed, subject to this pending motion to revive the case by HCMC. PM also has a path to invalidity of the patent in the PTAB and also, even if Judge Batten allows HCMC to amend the complaint (which i hope he does), PM also has numerous paths to invalidity in the district court case as well. Therefore, I see it as highly improbable that PM would settle at this stage because of the this lawsuit. If I were in PM's shoes, I would be feeling very comfortable. They have Cozen clearly outmatched and they should; on a reputational basis, PM's lawyers are better. Cozen will need to work twice as hard. So far, they botched the opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and decided not to respond to the IPR petition. It looks like Cozen is working half as hard.
The only way I could see a settlement happening at this stage is if PM decided they needed the patents for some offensive tool against other competitions, such as BAT. But I doubt PM would settle due to the case itself. It is going very well for them so far. That fact is undeniable.
Is it also possible PM deliberately hinted at a deal to cause HCMC to miss the deadline?
Normally I would say no good lawyer would be fooled by such a ploy and that a good lawyer would either ask for an extension to iron out a settlement or file all papers when due until settled. So in my opinion, this would not be likely, but who knows what is going on in Cozen's head. As you say it is hard to figure out what Cozen is or isn't doing, but the simplest explanation here is that they chose not to respond and did it because they did not feel a response was necessary.
According to your thinking this delay should not have happened in the first place, HCMC should have responded one way or the other.
I feel that a good lawyer should always take the opportunity to get the last word in if they have they chance. Cozen had the chance here in the PTAB, but decided not to do it. That is a mistake in my opinion. Never let your opponent have the last word if you can avoid it. Now PM as the last word and the only word.
Cozen also made another colossal error. If they weren't going to respond, they could have waived the right to respond by telling the PTAB months ago that they were not going to respond. That would have had the effect of speeding up the clock and we could have been getting a decision from the PTAB now. Now we have to wait another three months unnecessarily. It is just more lazy and stupid in my opinion.
Did HCMC have other better choices than Cozen?
Of course. With 27M in the bank now, they have many options. Maybe they didn't have that before.
Let's not forget the role that Jeff Holman is playing in this negligence. Is he going to spend any of that money on the litigation because from what I can see he is not spending enough of that money that he took from the investors on the litigation itself. Fine, don't buy back shares, I get it. But if he believes that the litigation is a way forward for the company, then pay some good lawyers to do some good lawyering. Instead he is apparently hoarding cash and the lawyers are not doing what they should be doing.
I am losing faith, but with the stock price where it is, nothing to do by hold at this point. A reverse split will do nothing for me. HCMC needs to start winning something. All that is mounting are the losses and the negligence.
There is still no patent owner response docketed in the IPR. If HCMC was not going to respond, then they should have waived the right months ago to speed up the clock. That way we would be getting a decision now, i.e., 3 months from the waiver. But I still feel that not responding with a patent owner preliminary response would be a colossal mistake.
The due date was this week so they have 3 months from this week to decide. Had HCMC responded a month ago (meaning a month early), then it would have been 3 months from that response (in other words two months from this week). That’s why it says it’s the earlier of 3 months from the response or the date the response is due, i.e., in case the patent owner responds early.
Honestly, I am not sure. The last time I filed papers in an IPR, which was not that long ago and certainly within the last year or two, most of the filings were available to the public after 30 minutes. I am not sure what process he is referring to when he says 5 days. I know there are lags when it is a filing that requires Board approval, but this should not require Board approval. It is a filing as of right so I would expect that it would be immediately available. I suppose let's see. It would be crazy to not file something, so that leads to me think there is some kind of delay. HCMC and Cozen cannot be that stupid. Although at times, I probably would not be surprised by anything Cozen does.
Did anyone see a patent owner response to PMs IPR petition? I checked the docket and did not see one earlier today. If they didn’t respond that would be colossally stupid but after Cozen’s handiwork in the litigation they look colossally stupid to be begin with. Unfortunately Cozen is also counsel
in the IPR matter so expectations are as low as the stock price.
Yes, I saw the statements in Dr. Dreible's (not sure that's the right spelling) declaration. My question about it was really whether that analysis happened before the case was filed or after. It's usually done before. I don't think it matters ultimately, because it either combusts or it doesn't combust, but if HCMC had that evidence in hand before the suit was filed, they could have attached it to the opposition to the MTD and just have been done with this whole problem. So it matters in that sense. I was expecting to see a declaration attached to HCMC's opposition but didn't. So it lead me to speculate that HCMC did not have it in hand. Then they ask for a two week extension to amend the complaint. All of it taken together just appeared like HCMC was on its heels. All was avoidable. Anyway, I am still holding, so let's see what comes Friday. HCMC has the opportunity to make this really embarrassing for PM if they want to. I hope they do.
Could be significantly positive or significantly negative. I do not think I would perceive that event as just neutral.
Cozen O'Connor is a decent firm, but honestly, they are outmatched. That doesn't mean they cannot win this case. But they need to step it up.
The two firms they are up against, Latham & Watkins and Weil Gotshal, are top 10 firms. The firm I was at is a top 10 firm - Kirkland and Ellis. Kirkland, Latham, Weil, have all traded the top spot in terms of recognition numerous times over the years. Cozen O'Connor, while a good firm, has never come close to that mark. So the reality is that Cozen is good, but they are outmatched. And it shows.
Now do I think they can win. Yes. But can they win practicing law like this. No. They will have to want it. They will have to work harder at it than they are. If they do that, then they have a chance. I am hoping that they turn it around. They have started to but I hope it is not too late.
The problem is that Jeff doesn't know any better. He is not a patent lawyer. PM has its own internal Intellectual Property counsel that probably does nothing by sets strategy, reviews papers that Weil and Latham draft and that likely gets really critical about that stuff. But all of that produces good results and quality work. I was on the receiving end of that process for years. It is how it works and it works well. HCMC has none of that. There is nobody internal that is equipped to criticize Cozen and to really challenge them. For example, if I was HCMC's internal advisor, I would sit with Cozen daily, review papers, reject their work, have it refined, demand expert testimony. I would have definitely made them buy the device and run tons of test on it. Jeff doesn't know what he doesn't know. I am sure he is good at reviewing contracts or whatever type of law he did or does. But this is not a contract case. It is a patent litigation. It is very specialized.
Do I think they can win. I am not feeling great at the moment, but I am holding 30 million shares at the moment, so hopefully that says something. Am I frustrated by the harm that their missteps have caused - absolutely. For me, this has been converted from something with a real chance to something more like a gamble or a lottery ticket. And that change was inflicted by Cozen.
Why don't we clear up the mystery? Is there anything in HCMC's financials? I haven't looked but usually there is a legal line item and we can probably tell from that number whether or not this case is on contingency. Does anyone on this board know?
Cozen O'Connor is certainly practicing law like they are not getting paid, so my guess is contingency. But that inference is just based upon what appears to be Cozen's really lazy lawyering and not on actual knowledge of how they are getting paid.
Did Cozen really sue for patent infringement on a device that they never actually tested? I mean, that's patent litigation 101. Come on. I hope they are testing it now. Maybe that is why they wanted the extra extension, i.e., so that they could buy the device and test it. In other words, to do what they should have done last August. Let's see what is in the reply.
Don't forget that HCMC has to defend against the IPR too. So that is another expense and that would definitely not be on contingency.
Experts are rarely and usually never hired on contingency. They would have no credibility if their compensation depended upon their client winning the case.
FWIW, I do not think a reverse split is going to do anything in the medium or long term. I get the point about the number of shares being an issue but that is secondary. It certainly isn't going to correct for the mistakes Cozen O'Connor has made so far or might make in the future. It won't get us any closer down the path to resolution, whether that is trial or a settlement. We need news in the case, action, good decisions from the Court, proceeding down the path to trial or a settlement. We will not get to good decisions from the Court until we get past this dismissal stage. This case will not settle until the pressure of trial is looming. Unfortunately, because of Cozen O'Connor's mistakes, we are still fighting about whether the case will be dismissed under Rule 12, a very very very preliminary step. We are no nearer to trial or settlement than we were when the case was filed almost a year ago. In fact, we may arguably be back at the point that we were at a year ago, given that the judge has dismissed this case and has given us a life line to bring it back. Hopefully, the judge allows the amendment. Hopefully, PM does not then file another Motion to Dismiss against the amended complaint. Yes that can happen. I expect that to happen and I expect PM to file yet another Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint if we are allowed to file one. If that happens, that would probably mean that, at best, we are looking at early 2022 as a probable date when we can say that we are ok to proceed. All of that takes time which is painful for investors. All of that could have been avoided if Cozen had been as aggressive has PM's lawyers have been. These are the realities that we face as investors in this stock. I am an investor in this stock and i face that reality. so does everyone that is long. Hoping for a reverse split will do nothing to sustain us in my opinion. That is not news of anything. Look at Humble (HMBL). They were trading in the pennies and did a 4:1 reverse split earlier this year. The stock went up on the news, up to 5 or 6 bucks, but that hype only lasted a month or so because there was no actual good news to sustain it. HMBL's stock is back at 85 cents. A reverse split is not a panacea. It is a temporary solution that without news will result in the share price falling again.
Meanwhile we have other dark possibilities in our future. The PTAB might grant the IPR regarding the validity of the patent. That is a potentially upcoming negative event. That will come in the next couple of months. If granted, PM will move for a stay if the judge allows the amendment and does not dismiss the case. PM's device may be enjoined from sale in the US. That is another negative event. Time is not on our side here. The more time that passes, the more negative events that can occur to bring us down. This is patent litigation, not a slip and fall case. It is complex. The most complex kind of lawyering. Right now, we are in a void of news that would have been great for the stock price had the judge denied PM's Motion to Dismiss. But Cozen screwed that up in my opinion. Now we have to hope they get it together with looming PTAB and ITC decisions coming up. Even if the judge allows us to amend, how will the market perceive that if the PTAB has also granted the IPR and if the ITC grants an injunction. In my opinion, we lost a critical window here. And that was mostly Cozen's fault and partly HCMC's fault for not staying on Cozen. Whether or not Cozen gets it together, we lost a critical window of opportunity where there was not bad news and the potential only for good news. Now I fear that the good news we are all hoping for may be spoiled by bad news from the PTAB and the ITC. I cannot tell the future but what a colossal screw up if you think about it that way.
My point is that while the share structure is an issue, the bigger issue is poor lawyering and not moving fast enough. We should not be asking for extensions to fetch evidence we should have had together a year ago. There are good signs lately that Cozen may be changing and waking up. I just hope it hasn't come too late. But if you are going to email Jeff, email him about that. The share structure is a problem but it is a secondary issue.
No need to apologize. I’m just speculating.
That wasn’t my point. My point was they needed to do the offering because I think there are more cases coming on other patents against different defendants. They also now need to defend against the IPR challenge. That all costs money that they need now.
My guess is that with as many patents as HCMC has, that there are more lawsuits to come. Hence the need for the cash. I believe the avg cost of a patent litigation is about 3.5 million. I doubt their entire monetization strategy is to enforce one patent against one defendant.
Yes. Great question. That’s my point. The Court didn’t have to allow a motion to amend if it would truly be futile. Leads me to think that the Court misused the term futility which if that is true is just sloppy. But who knows? In any event, the characterization of a potential amendment as futile along with leave to amend makes no sense. But since the only thing that apparently lead to this futility was Exhibit J, we need to attack Exhibit J. PM will likely bring it up in their opposition.
A court must allow amendment unless the amendment would be futile. This leads me to conclude that the Court was saying, “well, I think it would be futile, but you tell me why it wouldn’t be and I’ll listen and if it’s not then I will let the case move forward.”
That’s what I am reading here. Could be wrong. But I am not sure how to reconcile any other way.
No problem. The Motion to Amend was decent, but still some work to do on reply. The fact that we needed the Motion to Amend was self-inflicted and should never have happened. Now I hope Cozen and HCMC are awake and will go for the kill here; hire a second expert (with the 27M everyone gave them), and explain Exhibit J away. The first expert will also need to explain the rest of the points I raised, e.g., about temperature of combustion, as well. So I would like to see two expert declarations on HCMC's reply. Because if I were PM's lawyer, that is what is coming in 14 days from Friday. The Judge is enamored enough with Exhibit J to call an amendment "futile" (which I still don't get). So when PM raises it, HCMC will need to be prepared to attack it.
So I am expecting PM's opposition on Aug 20 and HCMC's reply on Sep 3. That is absent an extension, but given the acrimony over extensions that was displayed in PM's last filing, I doubt anyone is getting or giving an extension here.
Motion to Amend is definitely in the right direction here. This is my take which is partly guess work because I cannot tell the future here and there are a lot of variables.
As I wrote before the Motion was filed on Friday:
If they file another underwhelming motion and proposed amended complaint, then chances are not great. If they file a great motion to amend, with expert testimony refuting why the FDA document should not be necessarily credited, and attaching that expert declaration to the proposed amended complaint, I would expect the chances of getting to an amended complaint to be good in my opinion.
Ideally, the expert declaration and the proposed amended complaint would provide evidence that HCMC purchased the IQOS device and tested it; that those tests resulted in byproducts of combustion; that there is a credible factual dispute as to what constitutes combustion; and either (1) the low temperature aspect of the IQOS device is not dispositive because, according to the science, combustion can occur at these lower values or (2) that based on testing, the IQOS actually heats to a higher temperature, high enough to allow combustion.
The Motion (and attendant declaration), checks some of those boxes. (tested the IQOS device, saw byproducts of combustion).
I expect PM to oppose the Motion to Amend based on its own expert and challenge the issue scientifically, including the suggestion that combustion can occur at lower temperatures. However, that sounds like a factual dispute that the Court should not get into at this stage.
The bigger problem is Judge Batten's characterization of a potential amendment as "futile." Usually that is reserved for situations where there is no way to overcome the defect. It puzzled me when I saw it. To me it was not futile because science could provide possibilities here. Perhaps the judge was elevating Exhibit J to proof because it was submitted to the FDA, I do not know. In any event, I expect PM to challenge here and raise the issue about Exhibit J again.
However, I believe HCMC does get a chance to reply here after PM files its opposition in 14 days.
HCMC should start preparing to explain the remaining issues that I identified in addition to why Exhibit J is not to be entirely credited at this stage in addition to reinforcing why combustion can occur at these lower temperatures. To challenge Exhibit J, HCMC should have a second "FDA regulatory" expert on board for the reply to explain that the FDA takes submissions at face value in some circumstances and therefore Exhibit J should not be credited at this stage. I saw that because I am sure PM will bring up Exhibit J and the Judge seems to be treated it as proof when he should not be doing that.
In any event, just my thoughts and guesses here.
A motion to amend was filed and it includes an expert declaration. Haven’t read it yet but at least it has a chance. Will need to take a closer look
Yes, technically the case has already been dismissed. The question is will Judge Batten allow HCMC to amend the complaint and thereby revive the case. If Judge Batten denies a Motion to Amend, there is an absolute right to appeal. The potential for success on appeal is dependent on what gets filed today, so it is hard to say, but you are right that amendment should be granted liberally. Again, it depends on how much Cozen does here. If they file another underwhelming motion and proposed amended complaint, then chances are not great. If they file a great motion to amend, with expert testimony refuting why the FDA document should not be necessarily credited, and attaching that expert declaration to the proposed amended complaint, I would expect the chances of getting to an amended complaint to be good in my opinion.
Ideally, the expert declaration and the proposed amended complaint would provide evidence that HCMC purchased the IQOS device and tested it; that those tests resulted in byproducts of combustion; that there is a credible factual dispute as to what constitutes combustion; and either (1) the low temperature aspect of the IQOS device is not dispositive because, according to the science, combustion can occur at these lower values or (2) that based on testing, the IQOS actually heats to a higher temperature, high enough to allow combustion.
I laid out a less detailed version of this path - one that relied upon expert testimony - more than 3 months ago after PM filed its motion to dismiss and before HCMC responded. It is in one of my posts. But I am not HCMC's lawyer. Cozen is.
let's see what the filing looks like.
I am in South Florida (palm beach county)
My opinion and best guess is that Cozen underestimated this part of the process and didn’t take it seriously, This is the easy stuff. Patent litigation can be extremely challenging but that part hasn’t really come yet. The pleading standards are so liberal it is very difficult to have a case dismissed for the reasons this one was dismissed. You really need to be asleep. I think knowing that, Cozen didn’t take it seriously and PM did. Hence the result. I am not saying they cannot overcome this; I am still holding a lot of shares. But they definitely don’t look good, let’s see what they file but it better have a declaration from an expert saying why there is combustion and why the FDA document isn’t to be believed. Otherwise I think Judge Batten would not allow amendment. That’s all they have to do in my opinion. Put in an expert declaration explaining why there is combustion and why the FDA submission doesn’t tell the whole story. The Judge is crediting the FDA document entirely because Cozen attached it to the complaint and has not really credibly explained why the Judge shouldn’t take it at face value. The only way to overcome this in my opinion is with expert testimony. PM used expert testimony to explain why the FDA document should be believed. Cozen presented nothing.
The bigger problem is if HCMC can overcome this, what about the rest of the case. If Cozen keeps this up, there is no shot. patent litigation is hard enough without shooting yourself in the foot constantly. Jeff Holman I am sure is a good lawyer but he is not a patent lawyer and so he cannot possibly know the nuances of this very technical lawyering. There is an entirely separate bar exam for lawyers that procure patents and you cannot even sit for that bar unless you have a science degree, I hope we overcome this but I am worried about the future even if we do.
Nothing to do with intelligence. It's experience. Former patent litigator, Kirkland and Ellis LLP.
Rookies or not, HCMC's lawyers are acting like rookies. If you can access it, look at the declaration that PM put in from their expert today. Docket Entry 45-10. This kind of declaration from an expert is precisely what I said months ago that HCMC needed to put in for its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Look at my old posts; I am not making it up). Cozen didn't bother to do anything. However, PM did bother. PM is following textbook patent litigation perfectly. And they are in the driver's seat because of it. The standards are so low for a plaintiff at this stage; it takes a colossal screw up to even get to HCMC's position. Cozen is seriously outmatched for whatever reason. It's depressing. Like watching a train wreck.
This is likely why the Judge denied the extension request. From Judge Batten's judicial instructions:
Parties seeking an extension should explain with specificity the unanticipated or unforeseen circumstances necessitating the extension and should set forth a timetable for the completion of the tasks for which the extension is
sought. Chief Judge Batten, Instructions to Parties and Counsel, at 4.
Cozen did none of that. No specificity explaining the unforeseen and unanticipated circumstances necessitating the extension. No real timetable for the completion of tasks. They just asked for two weeks using the old vague COVID and scheduling excuse. I take back what I said a couple of days ago about Cozen's briefs looking like they are written by a law student. At least a law student would know to follow the rules.
I do believe they will. That’s my guess, but I don’t know what they needed the extension for that they now don’t have time to get. But I believe they will file something.
thanks. hope it results in something. It's would be a miniscule expenditure that would protect our and their investment(s).
HCMC needs an "internal" lawyer to push Cozen. That is usually how this works. Internal general counsel polices outside counsel. Otherwise, you get this kind of underwhelming lawyering. HCMC should have had internal counsel telling Cozen what to do last week; get declarations, get exhibits, etc.... They just took 27M from investors. Spend 250k on an internal lawyer and this case will turn around in a heart beat. Hope it is not too late.
11:59pm EDT
As I wrote on Aug 2 regarding HCMC's Motion for Extension of Time
I hate to say it but what a really poorly written request. These lawyers look really lazy and unwilling to make a strong argument for anything. I am concerned. What’s the reason they need an extension? State it in the filing. Attach a declaration setting forth whose schedule is affected and why. You would think they would have learned their lesson from the last mishap. Apparently they didn’t. Now I’m stuck in this having to read briefs that look like they were written by a law student.
And to the person that responded to that and said "take it easy", well, here you go:
The Court has denied the request for an extension of time so I hope Cozen can get it's act together by tomorrow. HCMC needs to wake up. Jeff Holman needs to wake up. Cozen is asleep. They are not taking this case seriously. They are not drafting forceful papers. All of Cozen's filings are underwhelming.
I cannot wait to hear how this gets spun by the Board into a "settlement strategy."
oh well, your guess is as good as mine. People may not know that but PM has 14 days to respond to the Motion for Extension of Time, under NDGA Local Rule 7.1. In other words, PM's response to the extension request is due AFTER the deadline for HCMC to file the Motion to Amend the Complaint, which is this Friday. Cozen could have filed this as an emergency motion to be heard right away under NDGA Local Rule 7.2 but for some reason they didn't.
I am guessing someone from Cozen is probably frantically calling the Judge's law clerk now to get them to decide the motion early and before the rules say PM has to respond. Again, not sure what the strategy is behind that but maybe this is all part of Cozen's "strategy."