LabouredSubterfuge
Member
phisheep said:
Thank you phisheep.
As an apsiring IP lawyer I find your posts very interesting indeed!
- Status
Thank you phisheep.
As an apsiring IP lawyer I find your posts very interesting indeed!
Edge Games "completely certain" of win
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/edge-games-completely-certain-of-win
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/edge-games-completely-certain-of-win
:lol
Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
You know next time you might just want to type it out...Ondore said:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
USPTO have today suspended proceedings to consider Langdells motion to reconsider dismissal that was filed on 19th March.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92051465-CAN-17.pdf
Thats a perfectly proper thing for them to do, even if it seems a little odd given that proceedings were already suspended from 22nd February pending EAs revised petition and Langdells answer to it. But I suspect it will be the last time that Langdell gets this much leeway.
As I mentioned before, I expect this latest motion to be denied, since
(a) the matters in dispute were not in fact fully litigated as Langdell claims, and
(b) the doctrine of stare decisis does not preclude consideration of new evidence even on facts already litigated, and
(c) it isnt even clear that stare decisis actually applies
However, there is a bit of tricky stuff that the board will have to negotiate, and that is whether the new motion should be considered in the light of EAs petition of September 11th or their amended petition of 24th March, which postdates Langdells latest motion. Because the earlier petition did not particularise the fraud allegations it wont be quite so easy to dismiss (because it is on essentially the same grounds as the Velocity Micro case) and I suspect the Board will be very careful in treading round this issue.
Since, at root, Langdells motion would allow anyone who gets away with fraud once to then have the fraudulent trademark extended in perpetuity its pretty easy to see that the board wont want to allow it!
However, it is likely if only to avoid the possibility of a successful appeal that this delay will give Langdell additional time to answer, which he hasnt done yet.
Last time it took nearly three months for the dismissal motion to be considered. I hope it isnt that long this time around.
Watch this space.
Incidentally, Ive spent some time rummaging through US trademark law, and it turns out that Langdell wont be able to surrender the trademarks while proceedings are alive without EAs consent. So chances are this will be a fight to the finish.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92051465-CAN-17.pdf
Thats a perfectly proper thing for them to do, even if it seems a little odd given that proceedings were already suspended from 22nd February pending EAs revised petition and Langdells answer to it. But I suspect it will be the last time that Langdell gets this much leeway.
As I mentioned before, I expect this latest motion to be denied, since
(a) the matters in dispute were not in fact fully litigated as Langdell claims, and
(b) the doctrine of stare decisis does not preclude consideration of new evidence even on facts already litigated, and
(c) it isnt even clear that stare decisis actually applies
However, there is a bit of tricky stuff that the board will have to negotiate, and that is whether the new motion should be considered in the light of EAs petition of September 11th or their amended petition of 24th March, which postdates Langdells latest motion. Because the earlier petition did not particularise the fraud allegations it wont be quite so easy to dismiss (because it is on essentially the same grounds as the Velocity Micro case) and I suspect the Board will be very careful in treading round this issue.
Since, at root, Langdells motion would allow anyone who gets away with fraud once to then have the fraudulent trademark extended in perpetuity its pretty easy to see that the board wont want to allow it!
However, it is likely if only to avoid the possibility of a successful appeal that this delay will give Langdell additional time to answer, which he hasnt done yet.
Last time it took nearly three months for the dismissal motion to be considered. I hope it isnt that long this time around.
Watch this space.
Incidentally, Ive spent some time rummaging through US trademark law, and it turns out that Langdell wont be able to surrender the trademarks while proceedings are alive without EAs consent. So chances are this will be a fight to the finish.
hosannainexcelsis
Member
I just hope this fiasco ends up with Edge back on the App Store. I regret not purchasing it when I had the chance.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
EA yesterday filed opposition to Langdells motion to reconsider dismissal.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92051465-CAN-18.pdf
It is a short document, and along the lines I expected pointing out that:
a) stare decisis doesnt apply here, as it applies only to decisions of law, not of fact
b) it also doesnt apply because the previous cases were settled, not fully litigated
c) EA and EA DICE have sufficient standing to bring the application
Looks legally sound to me.
It ends with a blunt request that Langdell be ordered to answer the petition promptly.
Were in for a fight!
Also, chaosedge has done an update on the legal story so far which is worth reading as it goes through the full history of the case, which I sort of jumped into partway through. Good for background.
http://chaosedge.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-legal-story-so-far/
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92051465-CAN-18.pdf
It is a short document, and along the lines I expected pointing out that:
a) stare decisis doesnt apply here, as it applies only to decisions of law, not of fact
b) it also doesnt apply because the previous cases were settled, not fully litigated
c) EA and EA DICE have sufficient standing to bring the application
Looks legally sound to me.
It ends with a blunt request that Langdell be ordered to answer the petition promptly.
Were in for a fight!
Also, chaosedge has done an update on the legal story so far which is worth reading as it goes through the full history of the case, which I sort of jumped into partway through. Good for background.
http://chaosedge.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-legal-story-so-far/
Captain Chaos
Member
Thanks for the updates, keep em coming.
Version 3.0
Member
Thanks for the updates. They're appreciated.
Dr Frasier Crane
Member
Hmm just a thought, could this litigation be holding up development or announcements of Mirror's Edge 2?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Thought I would just drop in a little word about what happens next, as it is less boring than summarising legal documents.
First of all, Langdells current motion to dismiss will be denied. Theres no reasonable room for doubt on that. It is just a matter of when. After that, the time for Langdell to answer EAs petition will almost certainly be reset probably to 30 days after dismissing his motion.
At that stage, though, Langdell is pretty much out of options for delaying proceedings: he has no further grounds to dismiss the petition, his claim for summary judgment has already been denied and no claims for summary judgment on other grounds can be brought before disclosure, and he cant go for judgment on the pleadings because he hasnt made his pleading yet. Those are the rules.
He cant reasonably request extra time to answer either, because in order to answer all he has to do is deny the allegations in the petition. For anyone else this would be easy you just write denied in a lot of numbered paragraphs, half an hours work at most but Langdell would have to find a way of doing this without perjuring himself, which wont be quite as simple as it would be for the rest of us.
He might try his old trick of pretending that letters never arrived or were lost in the post, but that wont work for long and it wont work at this stage at all because all EAs pleadings are there already.
And as I (eventually) concluded above, he cant voluntarily cancel or surrender the trademarks in issue without EAs consent.
If he doesnt answer at all, or answers and then fails to co-operate in pre-trial disclosure, EA will be able to apply for judgment in default or summary judgment which would be game over.
So, once this motion is denied, there are not many places for Langdell to go.
One of the very few ways he could avoid a personal trainwreck here would be to find someone gullible enough to buy his companies. So if youre in the market for a little-used, slightly-soiled game company with something of a chequered history, do your homework carefully before handing over your $5.
First of all, Langdells current motion to dismiss will be denied. Theres no reasonable room for doubt on that. It is just a matter of when. After that, the time for Langdell to answer EAs petition will almost certainly be reset probably to 30 days after dismissing his motion.
At that stage, though, Langdell is pretty much out of options for delaying proceedings: he has no further grounds to dismiss the petition, his claim for summary judgment has already been denied and no claims for summary judgment on other grounds can be brought before disclosure, and he cant go for judgment on the pleadings because he hasnt made his pleading yet. Those are the rules.
He cant reasonably request extra time to answer either, because in order to answer all he has to do is deny the allegations in the petition. For anyone else this would be easy you just write denied in a lot of numbered paragraphs, half an hours work at most but Langdell would have to find a way of doing this without perjuring himself, which wont be quite as simple as it would be for the rest of us.
He might try his old trick of pretending that letters never arrived or were lost in the post, but that wont work for long and it wont work at this stage at all because all EAs pleadings are there already.
And as I (eventually) concluded above, he cant voluntarily cancel or surrender the trademarks in issue without EAs consent.
If he doesnt answer at all, or answers and then fails to co-operate in pre-trial disclosure, EA will be able to apply for judgment in default or summary judgment which would be game over.
So, once this motion is denied, there are not many places for Langdell to go.
One of the very few ways he could avoid a personal trainwreck here would be to find someone gullible enough to buy his companies. So if youre in the market for a little-used, slightly-soiled game company with something of a chequered history, do your homework carefully before handing over your $5.
Barberetti
Member
Thanks for the updates and insights phisheep. Much appreciated. It's been really interesting following the story and this thread. Can't wait for the next bit of news!
Vigilant Walrus
Member
What do you think would happen if Langdell merged his body with Jack Thompson?
... Dell-Son?
... Dell-Son?
Lonewolf_92
Member
Thanks for helping keep this all in perspective for us law-illiterate, phisheep! 
Hope this bastard gets what he deserves.
Hope this bastard gets what he deserves.He's started using Edge magazine's branding for his own merchandise again...
http://www.cafepress.com/EDGEGAMES
http://www.cafepress.com/EDGEGAMES
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Here we go again.
Today Langdell filed a reply to EAs opposition to Langdells motion to reconsider Langdells denied motion to dismiss EAs petition to cancel Langdells tradmarks.
Still with me so far? Good.
Here it is: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051465&pty=CAN&eno=19
This was filed *exactly* a month after the last filing looks like (surprise surprise) he is trying to string the decision out.
Mostly it consists of a prolonged plea that the doctrine of stare decisis should apply to this case, but it wont work and is not well argued. For example, on page 3 he quotes (with his own added emphasis) TMEP 1217 as follows:
Langdell emphasised and relies on the underlined sections. EA relies on the phrase that I have bolded which oddly enough Langdell draws no attention to at all.
There was no principle of law at issue in the Velocity Micro case, so stare decisis cannot apply.
On page 5 Langdell claims again that Velocity Micro was fully litigated on the somewhat shaky grounds that in the (settled) order Edge was deemed to have succeeded on the merits. I dont think that will fly.
Which brings us to the most interesting part of the document, which is this curious paragraph on page 6:
That little phrase simple application of logic hides a lot. He has to say that, because the judgment doesnt say anything of the kind - it did not determine that Langdell had not committed fraud.
So lets see where the simple logic leads.
Langdell claims that since the judge deemed the case to have succeeded on the merits he must have seen sufficient evidence that there was no fraud.
Thats not true at all.
Even if the case hadnt been settled by agreement (and so not fully litigated) the judge could (theoretically) have found for Edge without seeing ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that there was no fraud. All he needed to have seen was not enough evidence that there was fraud.
Well. Thats fixed now, with the particularised fraud allegations in EAs revised petition and the new evidence dug out by ChaosEdge.
Conclusion: Langdell still doomed just a matter of when.
Keep watching for the next exciting instalment.
Today Langdell filed a reply to EAs opposition to Langdells motion to reconsider Langdells denied motion to dismiss EAs petition to cancel Langdells tradmarks.
Still with me so far? Good.
Here it is: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051465&pty=CAN&eno=19
This was filed *exactly* a month after the last filing looks like (surprise surprise) he is trying to string the decision out.
Mostly it consists of a prolonged plea that the doctrine of stare decisis should apply to this case, but it wont work and is not well argued. For example, on page 3 he quotes (with his own added emphasis) TMEP 1217 as follows:
Langdell emphasised and relies on the underlined sections. EA relies on the phrase that I have bolded which oddly enough Langdell draws no attention to at all.
There was no principle of law at issue in the Velocity Micro case, so stare decisis cannot apply.
On page 5 Langdell claims again that Velocity Micro was fully litigated on the somewhat shaky grounds that in the (settled) order Edge was deemed to have succeeded on the merits. I dont think that will fly.
Which brings us to the most interesting part of the document, which is this curious paragraph on page 6:
That little phrase simple application of logic hides a lot. He has to say that, because the judgment doesnt say anything of the kind - it did not determine that Langdell had not committed fraud.
So lets see where the simple logic leads.
Langdell claims that since the judge deemed the case to have succeeded on the merits he must have seen sufficient evidence that there was no fraud.
Thats not true at all.
Even if the case hadnt been settled by agreement (and so not fully litigated) the judge could (theoretically) have found for Edge without seeing ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that there was no fraud. All he needed to have seen was not enough evidence that there was fraud.
Well. Thats fixed now, with the particularised fraud allegations in EAs revised petition and the new evidence dug out by ChaosEdge.
Conclusion: Langdell still doomed just a matter of when.
Keep watching for the next exciting instalment.
phisheep said:
Surprise surprise.
Thanks for the summary again, as always you cut to the point of the law rather than the waffle. Do we need to wait another month for the USPTO to accept or deny one or the other party's arguments or will there be some forward movement?
Have you read his other motion in the basic EDGE trademark dispute, also filed exactly a month after EA's last motion to consolidate? It seems a bit...muddled. He claims EA haven't filed an amended petition (they have) and that there are only superficial similarities between the cases (there aren't).
Does he have a leg to stand on re: his comments on the claims of fraudulent registration? It's true that the Snoopy material he uses to support the Edge registration has been used in the past, but my understanding of US trademark registrations is that you need to prove recent usage of the mark in a particular context (in fact, in every class you want to register the mark) and can't use evidence from years ago to do so - is this not in fact the case?
If not, I'll kill our trademark lawyers, I spent a good week sourcing recent US uses of a trademark we recently renewed for them last year...
Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
Wow. That's...Wow.
As always the updates and translation are appreciated phisheep.
As always the updates and translation are appreciated phisheep.
Castor Krieg
Banned
phisheep said:
I hope EA won't settle and will run the guy into the ground.
BobTheFork
Member
I swear I get a partial when ether this thread or the IW bailout watch get bumped. Thanks again for the update.
TemplaerDude
Member
yencid said:
it's easier if you read it backwards.
Scalemail Ted
Member
Phisheep, your analysis and summations are awesome.
MightyHealthy
Banned
We got Soul Blade because of this dolt?dalyr95 said:
grrrrrr
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Right, Tim, that logic would be what we call "fallacious". Do you know what that word means?
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
The end is near?
- Status