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.
