Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is more rewarding than a wealthy stubborn opponent who makes obscene claims and has nothing to back those claims.
For pro-lawyers, this is easy target practice like for us playing a browser shooter game.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
At this point, I didn't think things could get worse for GW.

I wonder how Chapterhouse managed to snag them up?

Their other lawyers probably reached out to their peers.

Or, to put it more succinctly: Dogpile!!!!!

Would have been fun to listen in on the conversation between the two firms that set this up...

"We got a sucker on the line and he's hooked good. Want to help us reel him in?"

T

It could very well be a "Tag, you're in!" situation as well.

WilmerHale is fresh, and happens to have a really good appellate record. Ultimately, we'll know if it is a tag team or a dog pile if/when an appeal is filed and we see what names are on it.

At the end of the trial, CHS had other 3 firms offering their services for the appeal. The simple fact is GW's position would set such a bad precedent all these other firms would have their clients hurt by it, so I wouldn't call it dogpiling as much as an imperative. I would say, they would feel negligent not to participate.

Hrm. So, WilmerHale has an office in London. I wonder if their having a presence over there influenced their decision to take on the case...?

Also, I imagine that having a case that is going on for 2+ years now must be filling up all those companies pro-bono quotas nicely...

Saldiven wrote:
Hrm. So, WilmerHale has an office in London. I wonder if their having a presence over there influenced their decision to take on the case...?

I doubt it. Appeals are like litigation by mail. There isn't a great need to be co-located with the court in order to do an appeal and there's no discovery. So there's little need to have someone in Chicago, much less London.

Having a Chicago office was a big plus, and a veritable necessity, for Winston & Strawn, as every motion requires a personal appearance in the 7th circuit district court. And then co-location is a huge cost saver when it comes to a trial. It saves on the necessity of having local counsel too. So all in all, for normal litigation co-location is a big deal. For the court of appeals, not so much.

If this is in fact the correct firm, and it goes much further..

SOMEONE needs to update that Wikipedia article under their "notable Pro Bono work" section.. lol

-Porkuslime

Hmm I should re-activate my pacer account.

czakk wrote:
Hmm I should re-activate my pacer account.

Oh, please do. You have been on fire with keeping the thread up to date.

What do you think about WilmerHale throwing its hat into the ring?

I think they want to do an appeal, and I think they must be interested in the costs decision and shaping some of the briefs - afaik that's going to be an opportunity for 'new law'. Being able to get costs for a mixed decision like this would be a boon for anyone doing defence work and might discourage the kind of litigation strategy employed in this case (claim everything in the world, win on only a few).

You mentioned 400-500 dollars a hour as a billing rate - I'm in a different country but I'd expect to charge 700-800 for a partner doing appellate work and then 350 for the junior and 400-500 for the senior associate.


From an audience perspective, an appeal would be great news, we get more transcripts filed as part of the record, we get top flight counsel writing factums etc... We might luck out and get Posner as one of the coram of judges (if I understand the court structure).

As far as CHS and GW goes, I'm sure they'd like to be finished with the case.

czakk wrote:
I think they want to do an appeal, and I think they must be interested in the costs decision and shaping some of the briefs - afaik that's going to be an opportunity for 'new law'. Being able to get costs for a mixed decision like this would be a boon for anyone doing defence work and might discourage the kind of litigation strategy employed in this case (claim everything in the world, win on only a few).

You mentioned 400-500 dollars a hour as a billing rate - I'm in a different country but I'd expect to charge 700-800 for a partner doing appellate work and then 350 for the junior and 400-500 for the senior associate.


From an audience perspective, an appeal would be great news, we get more transcripts filed as part of the record, we get top flight counsel writing factums etc... We might luck out and get Posner as one of the coram of judges (if I understand the court structure).

As far as CHS and GW goes, I'm sure they'd like to be finished with the case.

I did say lawyer in the singular, but in terms of fee estimation, I like to not mess with various billing rates and sort of assume something like 400-500/hour as an average of all the hours worked in aggregate. More work is going to be done by associates and paralegals, with lower billing rates, so you can sort of homogenize. In any case, the point is that it's friggin' expensive; far more than Chapterhouse Studios could ever afford.

If only I billed out at 800/hour! It's touchy though when you do a lot of work on a lot of different types of cases. You don't really want to bill out at more than lead counsel, but then if paralegals are billing out at a higher rate you can look kinda silly. But that's why I work for a firm instead of having my own firm. Someone else decides all of that crap. I just get paid.

Even if Posner isn't on the coram, he should at least be there if someone requests an en banc hearing. Given the issues involved this thing might get that far.

So just how much worse can this get for GW here?
Are we talking CH not having to pay that $30,000 or are we talking GW being made to pay all of CHs fees, losing what trademarks the legitimately own and being laughed out of the building next time they try this?

 jonolikespie wrote:
So just how much worse can this get for GW here?
Are we talking CH not having to pay that $30,000 or are we talking GW being made to pay all of CHs fees, losing what trademarks they legitimately own and being laughed out of the building next time they try this?

If they lose the trademarks then it will be because they don't 'legitimately own' them.

Other than that... yes - to both.

Worst case - they lose both the trademarks they illegitimately own (stole from other places, never bought the rights to, generic ideas with a big TM stamped on them) and have the $20,000 either reduced or removed in its entirety.

And, yes, a nice big black mark against them if they try these shenanigans again.

The Auld Grump

Speaking as an educated layman, I believe that GW will lose more of their copyrights on shoulder pads.

It all looks like we are getting a big expensive appeal.
Will this have consequences for GW product pricing? Starter boxes for 200$? 200$-Warhosts instead of 100$-Battleforces?

Well... $60 for ten Witch Elves is a start....

The Auld Grump

Let's try and stick to the topic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's try and stick to the topic.

10/22/2013 444 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-8850285. (Steinberg, Donald) (Entered: 10/22/2013)

Hold the phone. There's a new surprise.

Donald R. Steinberg is on the case.

Donald Steinberg is the chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Department, a member of the firm’s Management Committee, and a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group and FinTech Group. He joined the firm in 1994.

This is no joke. Donald Steinberg being on the case is a really big deal. Here is a Law 360 article about Don. And Here is another one that is a Q&A with him.

The first article says of the Broadcom v Qualcom litigation "The WilmerHale team working the case was led by William Lee, Donald Steinberg and others, and in February, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement on all claims."

William F. Lee is WilmerHale's managing partner and a veritable legend in IP litigation. When I mentioned that WilmerHale represented Apple, it was Mr. Lee who was on the case.

This is really big news. Really big. This case had profile before, but I think it is about to become high profile in mainstream IP litigation.

Beside the fun to teach a moron, the IP lawyer crowd seems eager to make sure that GW can't claim the copyright on the world and set a precedence.

The part of that first link that was accessible says that Steinberg is the head of WilmerHale's IP department, does that mean he's a major partner in the firm, and is now personally taking on this case?

 derek wrote:
The part of that first link that was accessible says that Steinberg is the head of WilmerHale's IP department, does that mean he's a major partner in the firm, and is now personally taking on this case?

Yes.

Donald Steinberg is currently the chair of WilmerHale's intellectual property department and a member of the firm's management committee. He is an important partner at the firm who has been around for a long time and has had a distinguished career in intellectual property litigation. There has been a filing requesting permission for Mr. Steinberg to appear before the Court, meaning he is involved in Chapterhouse's defense.

Something tells me GW's legal department is about to get a kicking.

So the firm that led the failed defense of Apple's rounded corner patent is now leading the fight against another firm claiming generic geometric shapes? Someone is calling the kettle black.

Does anyone think there's any chance of GW backing down and settling, now that there are some pretty big names coming to the table?

 Dheneb wrote:
Does anyone think there's any chance of GW backing down and settling, now that there are some pretty big names coming to the table?

That would be the smart thing to do, which is why GW will double down and try anything to salvage the unsalvagable.

 Dheneb wrote:
Does anyone think there's any chance of GW backing down and settling, now that there are some pretty big names coming to the table?

I doubt the other party would be willing to settle now, unless it was quite substantial.

 Sasori wrote:

 Dheneb wrote:
Does anyone think there's any chance of GW backing down and settling, now that there are some pretty big names coming to the table?

I doubt the other party would be willing to settle now, unless it was quite substantial.

Good point, from my (admittedly limited) understanding of how the case currently stands chapterhouse has no reason to listen even if GW wanted to settle.

GW have acted like bossy children determined to get their way from the get go, if I where in CHs shoes and GW offered a reasonable settlement I wouldn't take it out of spite.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Dheneb wrote:
Does anyone think there's any chance of GW backing down and settling, now that there are some pretty big names coming to the table?

That would be the smart thing to do, which is why GW will double down and try anything to salvage the unsalvagable.

"Salvage the unsalvagable"? I don't know if you noticed but CHS lost the case. If you get tried with 20 counts of burglary and get found guilt of 10, the guy who's house you burgled won't give up just because the other guy has big names on his side.

Unless there's something I'm not aware of that would mean CHS was not guilty or that GW was about to lose the case or something, which I haven't seen.

xruslanx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Dheneb wrote:
Does anyone think there's any chance of GW backing down and settling, now that there are some pretty big names coming to the table?

That would be the smart thing to do, which is why GW will double down and try anything to salvage the unsalvagable.

"Salvage the unsalvagable"? I don't know if you noticed but CHS lost the case. If you get tried with 20 counts of burglary and get found guilt of 10, the guy who's house you burgled won't give up just because the other guy has big names on his side.

Unless there's something I'm not aware of that would mean CHS was not guilty or that GW was about to lose the case or something, which I haven't seen.

Using a criminal law example in a civil law case probably wasn't a good start

Earlier in this topic there's filings from both sides asking the court to declare them the winner and explaining why the court should do this and why it doesn't work like your analogy.