InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
5,240.03
(
1.04%
)
US TECH 100
17,428.80
(
0.08%
)
Dow Jones
38,997.66
(
0.76%
)
Brent Oil
76.02
(
-1.48%
)
Bitcoin
56,609.75
(
4.85%
)
Post# of 60938
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (2) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (2) Next 10 Prev Next

Cougar6

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 5
Posts 2099
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/04/2007

Cougar6

Re: None

Tuesday, 11/23/2010 9:16:03 AM

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:16:03 AM

Post# of 60938
11/23/2010 - ORDER SIGNED DENYING TRANSFER OF CASE TO ANOTHER DIST COURT

http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/eDocs/Public/CaseDetails.aspx?CaseNbr=201002545&CDI=7

I really don't like this Judge. ALthough after they withdrew the request for turnover I believe the decision was within the limits of judicial discretion and therefore not appealable. Looks like we are stuck with Diac for a while longer, unless the 2008 agreement gets tossed in total (or at least the clause agreeing to dismiss the case with prejudice).

On the positive side, Diac cannot currently request a turnover of the patent.
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (2) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (2) Next 10 Prev Next
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.

Sign Up