Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234! Chapterhouse to re-open store

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.

**Aerethan**

Kroothawk wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:Thanks for that! So basically there has been no movement on the case, just an endless dance around the ring while they size eachother up and figure out how they are going to go about it.

Basically yes, but with one side paying big money for waiting, using every trick in the business to not even meet the minimum formal requirements for starting the case. So it's not "big bully eats small kitten for breakfast" as some expected but "big bully tries not to be eaten by small kitten with chances getting worse".

That is a very apt metaphor for this case so far. Love it.

**weeble1000**

It is notable that Dean Morehous is listed as "Of Counsel." That basically means he is semi-retired, so if you're thinking about what it means that he was brought into the case, keep that in mind. The phrase generally refers to someone who, while not an associate or partner in the firm, nonetheless has a relationship with the firm. From there, specific uses may vary, but it commonly refers to a retired partner that is available for consultation or assistance.

Morehous was with Thelen LLP until the firm dissolved in '08, at which point he joined W&S as Of Counsel, along with 19 other attorneys that W&S was pleased to bring into the fold.

**AgeOfEgos**

weeble1000 wrote:It is notable that Dead Morehous is listed as "Of Counsel." That basically means he is semi-retired, so if you're thinking about what it means that he was brought into the case, keep that in mind.

What does that mean?

**weeble1000**

It means exactly what I said it means AgeOfEgos. Morehous is Of Counsel at W&S, meaning he's probably semi-retired and available for consultation and assistance. Read into that whatever you'd like, I just thought I'd point it out in case folks didn't know what Of Counsel meant.

**AndrewC**

weeble1000 wrote:It is notable that Dead Morehous is listed as "Of Counsel." That basically means he is semi-retired...

Nice to know that that even in the afterlife, you can still obtain gainful employment.

Andrew

Sorry OT I know. It appealed to me.....

**Ratius**

Kroothawk wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Thanks for that! So basically there has been no movement on the case, just an endless dance around the ring while they size eachother up and figure out how they are going to go about it.

Basically yes, but with one side paying big money for waiting, using every trick in the business to not even meet the minimum formal requirements for starting the case. So it's not "big bully eats small kitten for breakfast" as some expected but "big bully tries not to be eaten by small kitten with chances getting worse"

Thanks, I have been confused as hell too for the last 50 pages.

Guess no Tervi kit any time soon then

**Kroothawk**

Ratius wrote:Guess no Tervi kit any time soon then

Ask your local GW if they can order the Chapterhouse conversion kit then

**Fat_Little_Ripper**

Kroothawk wrote:
Ratius wrote:Guess no Tervi kit any time soon then

Ask your local GW if they can order the Chapterhouse conversion kit then

The problem with your suggestion Kroothawk is the fact that the Chapterhouse conversion kit is that it doesn't really look right. It simply makes a fat Carnifex, not really a Tervigon in many peoples eyes.

Speaking of unreleased Tyranid models, anyone know of a current Tyranid rumors thread? It would be great if there was one...

**Alpharius**

So off topic that it borders on the sublime.

Back on track everyone!

**Fat_Little_Ripper**

Sorry for the off topic there..
On topic, for the last year we have seen mud slinging, finger pointing, name calling and stalling for more time. I have to wonder what the next year will hold in this case. And if we'll all be having similar discussions then.

**Sidstyler**

I predict either more of the same or dramatic change as everyone involved gets tired of having the morons at GW waste their time.

**Dysartes**

Well, assuming the aforementioned timeline is held to, things should be more interesting by this time next year - the trial should have stared, after all...

**Platuan4th**

Fat_Little_Ripper wrote: And if we'll all be having similar discussions then.

Of course we will.

Constantly repeating arguments that state the exact same thing every time is the life blood of Dakka.

**aka_mythos**

...Only because some people either don't want to follow a thread as people keep posting to it or don't want to look back through so many pages and yet believe their opinions are either important or novel enough not to have been represented previously in the discussion when in fact they have.

**chaplaingrabthar**

Okay, I understand that this Morehous guy that's been hired in an 'Of Counsel' capacity is kind of a big deal in the matters of IP law.

Would this lead the more knowledgeable legal eagles of Dakka to believe that this case is now significantly less likely to result in a pre-trial settlement than before he was hired?

And can anyone explain some of the cases he's been involved with in layman's terms for idiots like chaplaingrabthar? Or at least provide some links

**weeble1000**

Mr. Morehous was involved in the Visto v Seven Networks litigation down in Ed TX before Judge T. John Ward. He was at Thelen at the time, and was on the case representing Seven Networks from 2003 to 2007. Visto is basically a patent troll. The Seven Networks case was Visto's lead case in enforcing its patents. It was relatively successful at trial regarding Seven Networks. The jury awarded something like 3.6 million as well as a finding of willfulness. T. John subsequently hit Seven with an injunction, which was big, and scared the bejeezus out of subsequent defendants like RIM.

Ultimately though, as with most Ed TX patent cases, it has been cleaned up a bit post district court. The USPTO, if you can believe this, subsequently found several of the claims that were enforced against Seven Networks invalid. We're starting to call this the Texas two step: do the best you can at trial, fight what you can fight, and lay good groundwork for your appeal. If you get totally screwed by the Court, appeal and watch it all get flipped. You just have to have the cojones to stay the course and shell out for the appeal. It worked out well for Abbott, for example. I'll admit, a 1.67 billion jury award is freaking scary, but not so much when you have the Texas two step in mind: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-23/business/ct-biz-0224-abbott-humira-20110224_1_humira-rheumatoid-arthritis-drug-knoll-pharmaceuticals-abbott-laboratories

That's way off topic, but the Visto v Seven Networks case is the only case I'm familiar with off hand that Mr. Morehous was involved with. You can't really take the Seven Networks jury verdict as indicative of Morehous's skill as an attorney though, which is why I discussed the case. I did a casual search and I didn't turn up any other cases with which Morehous was involved that I am familiar with.

**biccat**

Sidstyler wrote:
If we're talking about the car body or other aesthetic parts, then you're right.

But if they're all copyrighted and protected then why do sites/companies exist that sell body kits? In some cases you can even buy replacements that are made to look exactly like stock parts, namely spoilers.

Possibly because spoilers are functional (at some level), also because spoilers and other body parts are sold as useful for repairing or fixing a vehicle, they're not a replacement for the original (vehicle).

AgeOfEgos wrote:
weeble1000 wrote:It is notable that Dead Morehous is listed as "Of Counsel." That basically means he is semi-retired, so if you're thinking about what it means that he was brought into the case, keep that in mind.

What does that mean?

Of Counsel means a lot of things. A person who is too experienced to be an "associate" but not ready for partnership may be listed as "of counsel." Or a person may only be loosely affiliated with a firm and be "of counsel", either parter-level or not. Some firms require partners to divest their partnership after a certain age (e.g. 65), and if they stay on after that they will be listed as "Of Counsel." This may be either a full or part-time basis.

With all due respect to weeble1000, being listed as "Of Counsel" isn't notable. Check out Mr. Morehous' CV for a better idea of what he brings to the table.

**weeble1000**

It certainly is notable Biccat. If you're wondering why a certain individual was brought into a case, that individual's relationship with the firm is, in fact, significant. If all you're interested in is what caliber of lawyer he is, by all means confine yourself to reading his CV, although that can often be very misleading.

There's more going on at a law office than a bunch of curriculums vitae wandering around the hallways.

**Eldanar**

infinite_array wrote:...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

Funny you should mention that. Every morning when I drive into work I see multiple billboards from a PI firm in the city where I live. One of them references one of the attorneys at the firm being named as a "Super Lawyer...," whatever that means.

On the whole Of Counsel thing, that probably has little or no relevance. I've worked at firms where it was exactly as described as both Weeble and Biccat have pointed out (which is kind of funny when you think about it because they are somewhat disagreeing with each other; but then again, that is a legal practice for you

). It is really only relevant within the context of that particulr firm and how they choose to describe it, and in representations to the court and opposing counsel that this person is somehow affiliated with this firm. Depending on the firm, it might mean a semi-retired former partner; it might be someone with too much experience to be an associate, but with no equity stake as a partner; or it might be a hired big gun brought in to trouble shoot.

**weeble1000**

The Court has ruled on the motions to compel.

**loki old fart**

weeble1000 wrote:The Court has ruled on the motions to compel.

? explain please

**agnosto**

Nothing on RECAP yet...

**AndrewC**

I'm losing track of who wants what, who has what, who get to keep secrets what designers are now going to be sued and who killed Mr Black with what and where, oh sorry wrong game....

It will satisfy my curiosity to see what steps/letters/settlements were presented/agreed with Paulson Games. Lack of substance may support the excuse/conspiracy for the venue move to Chicago.

Cheers

Andrew

**George Spiggott**

I think it's this:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.139.0.pdf

Plaintiff’s motion to compel:
(1) The Court was unable to address in full interrogatory 2 and document requests 7, 9, and 10 because
defense counsel was unaware of what documents are in the process of being produced. (2) Defendant is not
obligated to produce documents in the hands of its independent contractors / designers. (3) Defendant is to
comply in full with document request 9. (4) Document request 4 is overly broad as currently worded. (5)
The Court finds that defendant’s responses to the requests to admit were timely. Defendant must answer
interrogatory 15. (6) Defendant has failed to show that its list of outside contractors / designers is
appropriately designated as “attorney’s eyes only” under the protective order. (7) The Court declines to
enforce interrogatory 12. (8) The Court declines to enforce interrogatory 5. (9) The Court declines to order a
further response to document requests 14 and 17 based on defendant’s representation that it has responded in
full to these requests. (10) The Court directs defendant to produce documents pursuant to document request
15 as narrowed in plaintiff’s motion to compel. (11) Documents responsive to document requests 16, 18 and
19 are to be produced by 12/28/11. (12) Request 20 is overly broad as currently worded and must be
narrowed by plaintiff, as described at the hearing, to be enforceable. (13) Regarding document request 21,
defendant is to conduct further due diligence to determine whether it has responsive documents, and if so it
must produce them. (14) The Court declines to enforce document request 25.

Defendant’s motion to compel:
(1) Plaintiff must produce the best available exemplar of the works in question. (2) Plaintiff is to respond i
full to interrogatory 9 and document request 2. The Court declines to enforce document request 36. (3)
Plaintiff is to respond in full to interrogatory 16 to the extent its current response is less than complete. (4)
Plaintiff is to respond in full to document requests 8 and 11. The Court declines to enforce interrogatories 6
and 7 and document request 12. (5) Plaintiff has agreed to produce the documents referenced in paragraph 15
of its response and prelitigation correspondence with Jon Paulson as referenced in paragraph 16. Plaintiff is
directed to produce for in camera inspection by 12/29/11 its settlement correspondence and settlement
agreement with Paulson. Plaintiff is directed to respond in full to document request 28 now that the Court
has removed the attorney’s eyes only designation regarding the identities of defendant’s independent
designer

Anyone care to decipher this? Is there a list of these 'interrogatories'? We can then match them up with these rulings.

**skyth**

Without looking at what the actual interrogatoires were, looks like GW got put in their place. (Most of their demands were denied, most of CHS's were accepted).

**agnosto**

Recent acion made it over to PACER:

The Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff’s motion to compel [# 117] and defendant’s motion to
compel [# 121] as stated in open court on 12/19/11 and as memorialized below. The Court also grants
plaintiff’s motion to seal [# 119]. The case is set for a status hearing on 2/8/11 at 9:30 a.m.

In addition to the previous post. Note the next status hearing, 2/8/11 by which time both parties will need to produce some items.
Looks like CH came out ahead on this one as the court upheld quite a bit of what their counsel put forward. I got the feeling that the court might be getting tired of GW's counsel claiming their clients own the entire universe and everyone in the world owes them obeisance [/hyperbole] as it was recognized that many of their demands were overly broad. Looks like CH must tell everybody who their designers are and GW has to acually pin down what they claim CH did wrong.

**Sidstyler** · Is that date supposed to be 2/8/12?

Is that date supposed to be 2/8/12?

**Kilkrazy** · I assume 2/8/12 in US order, i.e. 8th Feb 2012.

I assume 2/8/12 in US order, i.e. 8th Feb 2012.

**Sidstyler**

Well yeah, that's what I mean. Unless that post was about something that happened February this year.

**loki old fart**

16. Plaintiff is
directed to produce for in camera inspection by 12/29/11 its settlement correspondence and settlement
agreement with Paulson.

That sounds interesting