Defendant files a motion to recover the bond in a #ScheduleA utility patent case: https://www.scribd.com/document/652394655/SoClean-v-Schedule-A-Choice-One-Motion-for-Bond-Damages
According to this defendant, the asserted patent is directed to a machine and the accused product is a "mat and dust cover" (for that kind of machine).
"Given the obvious differences between the SoClean Patented Product and the ChoiceOne product, above, there was no basis for SoClean's lawsuit against ChoiceOne."
It appears that it is not unusual for judges to authorize service by email in #ScheduleA cases. This is an example of why that can be problematic:
When defendants fight back in #ScheduleA cases, it's not unusual for the plaintiffs to quickly dismiss them.
When the dismissed defendants seek bond damages or sanctions, the plaintiffs often respond by saying, basically: "We dismissed you; stop your bellyaching!"
This discussion shows how a wrongfully-enjoined defendant might suffer very real harm even if they are dismissed quickly:
Okay, so this motion is now fully briefed.
SoClean's opposition brief is three pages long, not counting the signature page.
It makes two arguments:
- "ChoiceOne is Not a Prevailing Party"
- "Alternatively, ChoiceOne’s Damages are too Speculative."
It doesn't even attempt to justify its initial infringement allegations.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.432988/gov.uscourts.ilnd.432988.37.0.pdf
This case is before Judge Pacold, the one who has created templates for #ScheduleA plaintiffs.
Stay tuned.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67303111/soclean-inc-v-does-1-292-as-identified-in-exhibit-2/
@design_law and that doesn't even include the attorney's fees to respond!
@design_law Defendant misapplies the O.F. Mossburg case. First, Mossberg it’s not binding because it is a Federal Circuit case, because the issue of prevailing party is not unique to patent law. Defendant should have cited to an applicable Seventh Circuit case. Secondly, Mossberg is distinguishable, because in the present case, unlike in Mossberg, a there has been a change in legal position, i.e. the removal of a TRO. The removal of the TRO makes the defendant a prevailing party.
@design_law I just want you to know that I enjoy your posts. I see your PFP with a screencap of text, I I just know it's a doozy.