Replies to post #38893 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[conagra]

I just read it. It's no different really but still bad for CLYW. In short, Daic says what I've been saying. CLYW has no proof of any of their allegations and CLYW is in default of the agreement and Daic wants the patent because of it. CLYW will lose.

[Cougar6]

I believe the difference is in the nature of the pleadings. There is a lot you can say or not say in the original pleadings but once you start to modify or defend, in essence, narrowing the issues in the case, you set the stage for the trial. Diac could have stuck to simply saying "they failed to pay and they are in default" with a general denial of the rest. I am not sure what he hopes to gain by this route, since he had a clear winner with the failure to pay. There is no disputing those facts, nor have we tried to dispute them. Our defenses are affirmative defenses -- yes we did that but the action is excused because of the tortuous interference.

I could just be reading into things. And if Carter is right about the judge being tied to Williamson, I think it will not matter. But from an objective perspective, I think they should have said less and may have opened the door for the judge to rule for the motion to transfer. At a minimum, they will have set the stage for an appeal.

JMHO

[HighRider]

The only difference is the Daic parties listed some prior court cases in one section. Nothing else changed.