Replies to post #3679 on DSS Inc (DSS)

[postyle]

According to this joint case mngmt. statement document available on PACER (8/15/2014), the defendants said the following:

Defendants propose to file a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, or alternatively an early motion for summary judgment, requesting that the Court declare the asserted claims invalid under Section 101 so that this potentially case-dispositive issue, which is purely a matter of law for the Court, can be resolved while the cases otherwise remain stayed.

...Defendants would be pleased to discuss with the Court whether to style their proposed motion as a Rule 12(c) motion or alternatively as an early Rule 56 summary judgment motion, in which case Defendants would respectfully request leave under the Court’s Standing Order. In any event, under the unusual circumstances of this case, Defendants propose that resolution of this threshold legal issue should not exhaust Defendants’ opportunity to seek summary judgment on additional issues (such as non-infringement and prior art invalidity) to the extent this motion does not dispose of these cases entirely.

Defendants propose the following briefing schedule on the Section 101 motion, to be followed by a hearing at the Court’s convenience:
* Defendants file motion – September 10, 2014
* Bascom files opposition – September 24, 2014
* Defendants file reply – October 3, 2014

So it's coming in the near future.