After ingesting that whole appellate brief, truthfully, I think it was more of a case of taking the District Court judge out behind the woodshed, more than a failure on the part of SA's attorneys. The brief just picks apart every piece of flawed logic on which Judge Kronstadt's dismissal was based. It shows he lacked a fundamental understanding of what the patent actually represented, and still kicked SFOR's suit out of court at the MTD stage. That, in my eyes, is a shocking implication. For him to dismiss SFOR's case, out of hand, based on his own (or his law clerks'
complete lack of ability to grasp simple concepts of the difference between "in-channel" and "out-of-channel" is, quite frankly, terrifying. It shows a complete lack of common sense.
But to your point, I don't think that is the fault of SA's legal team. I'd wager a few of them were surprised by the judge's ultimate ruling on that MTD. I never read their MTD, but if it contained anything on which Judge Kronstadt based his ruling, then I would agree that they need to be fired as well. But this brief makes it sound like Judge K went off on his own in conjuring these nonsensical arguments as to why SFOR's patents failed the Alice test.
I loved how many times they mentioned the fact the PTAB has already determined the validity of these patents. It's almost comical the number of times it's brought up. As if to say, "Duuuhhhhh! Why are we even here?"
Disclaimer: This is not the end of the road for SFOR. It's a MAJOR step in the right direction, but let's see what SA's response says before we put down payments on those Ferrari 488 Pistas. For those thinking SA will simply lay down and die after reading this brief, I have two words for you; "billable hours." SA's lawyers are, at this moment, crafting their response because...uh, DOLLARS. They don't get paid unless SA fights this, and they want to get paid. SA will fight it and pay those lawyers because they know they stand to lose more money if they lose this case than it will cost them to pay the lawyers to fight it. At least, that's my opinion.
At the end of the day, this is a giant opening salvo, and I think it blew a substantial hole in the side of Judge Kranstadt's logical reasoning flagship.
complete lack of ability to grasp simple concepts of the difference between "in-channel" and "out-of-channel" is, quite frankly, terrifying. It shows a complete lack of common sense. But to your point, I don't think that is the fault of SA's legal team. I'd wager a few of them were surprised by the judge's ultimate ruling on that MTD. I never read their MTD, but if it contained anything on which Judge Kronstadt based his ruling, then I would agree that they need to be fired as well. But this brief makes it sound like Judge K went off on his own in conjuring these nonsensical arguments as to why SFOR's patents failed the Alice test.
I loved how many times they mentioned the fact the PTAB has already determined the validity of these patents. It's almost comical the number of times it's brought up. As if to say, "Duuuhhhhh! Why are we even here?"
Disclaimer: This is not the end of the road for SFOR. It's a MAJOR step in the right direction, but let's see what SA's response says before we put down payments on those Ferrari 488 Pistas. For those thinking SA will simply lay down and die after reading this brief, I have two words for you; "billable hours." SA's lawyers are, at this moment, crafting their response because...uh, DOLLARS. They don't get paid unless SA fights this, and they want to get paid. SA will fight it and pay those lawyers because they know they stand to lose more money if they lose this case than it will cost them to pay the lawyers to fight it. At least, that's my opinion.
At the end of the day, this is a giant opening salvo, and I think it blew a substantial hole in the side of Judge Kranstadt's logical reasoning flagship.
10
1
