(Total Views: 287)
Posted On: 08/29/2017 5:09:18 PM
Post# of 11803
Plutonium - Thanks for the link to read the recent filing on Pacer -
I am totally a lay person BUT my two favorite points were:
1) While Lifescan’s Motion repeatedly references an “equivalent,” Lifescan’s Motion notably fails to clearly define “equivalent.” Indeed, while Lifescan’s Motion offers the Court little more than obfuscation, its tortured definition is the lynchpin of Lifescan’s entire Motion. Resolving this confusion reveals a Motion that is fatally flawed.
2) In other words, Lifescan latches onto over simplified similarities as a mechanism to distract the Court from the essential differences.
LET's HOPE IT WORKS!
I am totally a lay person BUT my two favorite points were:
1) While Lifescan’s Motion repeatedly references an “equivalent,” Lifescan’s Motion notably fails to clearly define “equivalent.” Indeed, while Lifescan’s Motion offers the Court little more than obfuscation, its tortured definition is the lynchpin of Lifescan’s entire Motion. Resolving this confusion reveals a Motion that is fatally flawed.
2) In other words, Lifescan latches onto over simplified similarities as a mechanism to distract the Court from the essential differences.
LET's HOPE IT WORKS!
(0)
(0)
