UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[Toanoman]

Judge A. my impression: - notes only cover Orders & Opinions - Not the eventual trials.
- Judge A. knows his law and applies it evenly to both plaintiff & defendant. note the case where the plaintiff failed to claim compliance with the marking statute. The weren't required to actually do anything to meet compliance - but they were required to file that they complied with statute. Plaintiff didn't file - big mistake - ruled for defendant. UOIP laywers have dotted i's and crossed t's.

- Judge A. orders/opinions seem evenly divided and usually based on a fact not a judgement call. However, when judgement is required, he can smell a skunk and doesn't tolerate BS - example was a company that denied that they had a relationship with an exclusive licensee. Big mistake

- Judge A. does a lot of Patent lawsuits - experienced - not a newbie.

- Judge A. attempts to weed out bad cases before trial by being only concerned with the sufficiency of the plaintiff claims.

- Judge A. is careful with "willful infringement" - Comcast lawyers ma be able to find a loop hole to beat it.

My opinion - Judge A. is experienced and fair. This case has been his for over 4 years and it was not dismissed it. He has bent over backwards to not give defendants cause to appeal and he has been generous on defendant requests for delays. He is grinding through expert witness testimony to make sure only relevant material gets into trial.

Wishing & Hoping case settles before trial - but if it goes to trial - Judge Andrews appears to be a good choice to allow UOIP/Chanbond lawyers to beat the stuffing out of 13 defendant Cable companies.