XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[coolerheadsprevail]

Question for JJ:

As an attorney, you got yourself a big bulls-eye on your back when investors in patent cases like this have questions! So, I've got one for you:

If 846 was jointly filed and granted by JJ to extend the briefing schedules for all the motions filed on 12/18 (GOOG's 820/831/833 and VRNG's 822/825/835) -- and keep in mind 846 specifically etched in stone opposition and reply brief dates of 1/25 and 2/15, respectively -- then how in the world is JJ able to rule on 835 already today when VRNG still supposedly has until 2/15 to present its reply brief???

On a different board, a poster suggested that any motion that involves Rules 50, 52, or 59 do NOT require reply briefs and that once both sides have been heard at least once (i.e. one party files original motion and the opposition files their brief), then JJ could rule w/o needing to wait to see any reply brief.

I have never heard of this rule before. If true, it flies in the face of 846, so we have on record a situation akin to the story of the "irresistable ball and the immovable post" -- one of these seemingly has to give, right???