I have had a considerable number of inquiries about the sealed motion for additional stay, so I thought I would make a post on this subject. Sorry for the length, but I try to be inclusive since I don't post regularly. The bottom line is that I see no cause for undue concern at this time. With the reminder that anything can happen, I seriously doubt that any of the lawyers in this case would want to approach Judge Ward with event a hint of delaying this trial any further --- therefore, I conclude that the greatest likelihood is that settlement negotiations are continuing, and that the additional stay is for that purpose. It is always possible, of course, that negotations have completely unraveled and that the decision has been made to proceed to trial, but that would appear to be contrary to the request for an additional stay --- in other words, there would be no need to stay the case if the desire is to go to trial. Remember that negotations of this type do not only involve dollars, but also other conditions that affect the parties and perhaps even non-parties --- as a result, there may be some dissension even among the defendants themselves as to how things should be handled, and such things can produce additional complexity. I do not know for sure that this is what is occurring, so it is pointless to engage in useless speculation about specifics --- based on my own experience in multi-defendant cases, however, it would not surprise me at all. What follows is my best guess at a time frame for the settlement to be concluded, assuming that is indeed what is going on behind closed doors. Please remember that I am not a patent lawyer, and that I still consider the initial stay, having been filed so close to a trial date, to be very unusual --- however, with all of that in mind, this is what my "practicing litigation attorney's" sense is telling me, FWIW to you. If I was going to request an additional stay of the case for the purpose of discussing settlement, and I still had a month or so prior to a trial setting, I would ask for more time than I actually thought necessary to reach the goal, especially since I would probably feel very uncomfortable about going "back to the well" a third time --- under present cirucumstances, that would be 7 - 10 calendar days, and while I haven't seen a PACER to the effect that the Order was signed, it is difficult for me to believe that Judge Ward would not do so in the present scenario. Of course, if the Order wasn't signed, then that places even more pressure on the parties to reach a conclusion. Either way, I would expect an announcement of some type around the middle of next week. You may recall that my original prediction quite some time ago was that the case would indeed settle, and that such would occur just before Christmas --- we are now nearing that time frame, although the original stay, being unusual in and of itself, had made me think it might actually be earlier. On the other hand, I am always mindful that lawyers are by nature "deadline seekers", i.e., that the amount of work necessary to complete any given task tends to expand in order to fill the maximum time that has been allotted. I see we have another licensing announcement this morning, which perhaps provides some indirect support for what I have said. In any event, I hope the above is of some use to you. Best wishes to all. |
Thread abonnieren
