LOL!!! I don't ever expect the market to naturally do a brilliant job handicapping the minutia in the various inputs in patent lawsuits.
I did read through the new reply to the amended complaint, and noted exactly nothing that I thought that was surprising or new or of any particular substance. Shockingly routine. Basically it looks like they took what they had from before, adjusted it to match up with the form of the CLYW amended complaint, and then threw it back out there... just more of the same ol same ol...
Why they'd need to ask for a couple of delays to produce that sort of a linear revision of the pre-existing boilerplate is a bit of a puzzle... maybe even looks like it was just that they were keeping too busy with other things (maybe suggesting managing this bit of process isn't a high priority for them, that they are just going through the motions)... or, they needed the additional time to go through it all again with a fine toothed comb, looking to find something new, some new nuance to exploit, some new bit to try use as a hook to justify their requests... and they just came up empty.
It looks to me like this filing is offering nothing much other than a green light...
Nothing in that filing supports dismissal...
CLYW says they are infringing, and they say they are not... and that is exactly what you'd expect both of them to say at this point, so what you see in this new filing is only more of exactly what you saw before, in what you'd expect them each to say, given there IS a conflict, while this reply seems it is adding exactly nothing new from what they'd said before...
The substance seems it hasn't changed one iota... leaving me still noting that both Williams Kherkher and Acacia were more than willing to put up their own money, even willing to pay us, for the right proceed to deal with and dispose of the T-Mobile blather, and neither one of them (or many others who have looked at it, including the current team, obviously) seemed to have very much concern about dealing with and disposing of the T-Mobile claims in their defense. I agree. I expect the lawyers opinions ought to weigh more than mine, but I've been through the laundry list of the T-Mobile objections many times over, and still find them pointlessly argumentative... focused on argument re details in procedural bits that at best miss widely in aiming to land glancing blows, while never getting anywhere close to addressing the substance of the core issues...
There is still some bit of procedural noise happening around the edges as this moves forward... but, the crux of the matter is still only a single issue. They can't make their systems work without relying on valid claims in the CLYW 923 patent... they are infringing... and the contest we see postured now looks like one that probably won't ever get beyond the Markman hearing...
Anyone who was counting on the T-Mobile filing to deliver some big surprise that might shift the odds in the process dramatically... has to be quite roundly disappointed, today.
We still need to see the current objections addressed by the judge in ruling on their motion to dismiss. This filing seems to do absolutely nothing at all to even TRY to justify or even provide any bit of support for that request, and, as far as that, it looks to me more like an admission of their expectation of exactly that more than anything else.
There is a clear controversy that exists... and it won't be resolved without moving this forward... and this filing doesn't offer any reason not to.
We'll see what the judge rules... soon ...and then, I expect we'll find we're moving quickly along to focusing on the actual controversy re T-Mobile's infringements, rather than continuing to dither with procedural details...
.JPG)
AI
.JPG)
