| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
20.  Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
20 Days? I wonder what's going on behind the scenes then...
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cutriss
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 21. Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have my account info handy to access PACER, or I would have been checking for new filings.
Whenever I get my computer set back up, I'll go take a look. Or you can poke J Dogg, since he has the login credentials.
_________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reenee
Trick Member
Joined: 21 Nov 2003
|
| 22. Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DancingMewtwo wrote: |
I wonder when we'll see "In The Stage Jr." (that is, after Konami wins its suit and Roxor has to turn over everything to Konami  ) |
Fixed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chilly Cha Cha
Trick Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Location: AlbaNectaTroy, NY |
| 23. Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VxJasonxV wrote: | | 20 Days? I wonder what's going on behind the scenes then... |
You can also stipulate to serve a late answer although that isn't as common - when you answer you generally list the paragraph numbers and either "Admit", "Deny" or "Deny having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief" as to the contents of the paragraph.
What generally happens when the complaint comes in is the attorney assigned to the case will look over the complaint and mark next to each paragraph number A, D, or DKI, and then the attorney's secretary will just type in the format and translate the initials into one of the above.
The answer is usually a fairly boring document unless there is a counterclaim being made. The other thing that goes in the answer are any "affirmative" defenses the defendant may have such as the statute of limitations has passed, the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter/defendant, etc. Those defenses are usually just as boring. In general an answer will look something like (it can get a little more involved such as where you admit part of a paragraph and deny the rest - but this is a basic format). Some offices will actually list each paragraph number out and then just write Admit or Deny, etc. every single time - but for the purposes of economy this is the basic format used below:
Defendant, A. Nonymous Infringer, Inc., by and through his attorneys, Dewey Cheatem and Howe, LLC, as for its answer to Plaintiff N. Force Myrites' complaint date Month 2, 2005, responds as follows:
1) Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2, 5-7, 10, and 20.
2) Defendant denies paragraphs 8-9, 11-15, 17-19, and 21-28.
3) Defendant denies having knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to paragraphs 3-4, and 16.
Affirmative Defenses
4) The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's complaint.
5) Plaintiff's complaint is barred because the statute of limitations on plaintiff's claim has passed.
6) Plaintiff is barred from seeking relief under the equitable doctrine of laches.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court deny all relief sought by Plaintiff and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
**See - pretty basic and boring document - unless Roxor makes a counterclaim don't expect to get much information from the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 24. Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chilly Cha Cha wrote: | | 1) Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2, 5-7, 10, and 20. |
What I've generally seen (and what amuses me to no end) is in the form of:
Given Item #1 of complaint:
1. Defendant is named Roxor Games, Inc. and is based in Plano, TX (just making this up).
Response:
1. Defendant admits that defendant is named Roxor Games, Inc., and is based in Plano, TX, and categorically denies all other statements.
_________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snickers1127â¶â
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Location: Redding/Stockton, CA |
| 25. Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chilly Cha Cha wrote: | The defendant in Federal Court has 20 days from service of the complaint in which to serve and file an answer to it. FRCP 12(a)(1)
Should Roxor include a counter-claim in its answer, then Konami will have 20 days in which to respond to the counter-claim. |
20 days from when we heard was May 31st. How long could an appeal for more time allow? Are there punishments for being late in responding to the complaint? Could Roxor have responded without anyone knowing?
It's great that you have the legal knowledge and are willing to share it. We are all glad that you have been able to translate this legalese for us.
Thanx again 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
| 26. Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snickers1127 wrote: | | Chilly Cha Cha wrote: | The defendant in Federal Court has 20 days from service of the complaint in which to serve and file an answer to it. FRCP 12(a)(1)
Should Roxor include a counter-claim in its answer, then Konami will have 20 days in which to respond to the counter-claim. |
20 days from when we heard was May 31st. How long could an appeal for more time allow? Are there punishments for being late in responding to the complaint? Could Roxor have responded without anyone knowing? |
Has it REALLY only been 24 days?
~_~
Holy cow, it feels like it's been over a month...
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PedanticOmbudsman
Trick Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Location: Fayetteville, AR |
| 27. Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a procedural/legal question/comment for the legal-minded folks:
I had an idea for an outcome that would be even better than a settlement but I'm not sure if it's legally feasible or likely. Is there any chance that RoXor could do an end-run around all these allegations by challenging Konami's patent and get it completely invalidated?
As I recall, patents are like trademarks in that if you knowingly and consistently ignore violations and fail to defend the patent, you can lose the right to selectively sue for violations in the future, i.e. "use it or lose it." I know this is the case for trademarks (and not the case for copyrights) but I'm not entirely certain about patents.
Could RoXor argue that Konami has, for years, ignored obvious and blatant violations of the patent that it's now attempting to selectively enforce? It's certainly a true statement: "DDR Megamix" and "DDR Extreme Plus" spring to mind as 100% illegal 100% cut-and-dry violations that Konami has let go unchallenged, and I'm sure there were others in the past. Like In The Groove, they're both third-party games that retrofit DDR cabinets, and they're a thousand times closer to being DDR clones than In The Groove is (they even steal the DDR name and almost all of the game's programming with only a few slight modifications).
Getting Konami's patent thrown out would be a huge victory not just for RoXor but also for everyone who thinks the 4-panel dancing genre has too much potential to be controlled by a single monopoly. In The Groove would not only be allowed to continue unimpeded, but it would open up the field to other competitors in the 4-panel dancing genre and force Konami to try to compete fairly on a level playing field.
Is this just a fantasy on my part, or might it actually work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shinmizu
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
Location: Stuck in a Klein bottle |
| 28. Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose there is a possibility. Isn't Hoover no longer considered trademark-worthy in England for a similar reason?
_________________
For a Good time, call 555-1212 and ask for Susan. For a Great time, call 555-3487 and ask for Mindy. For a Perfect time, call 555-6341 and ask for Stephanie. For a Marvelous time, call 555-6341 and ask for Stephanie's mom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj iwakura
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Location: coral springs, fl. |
| 29. Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm fairly sure this pertains to how the case itself'll play out..
I told the Swap Shop arcade manager about this whole debacle, and he said this wasn't the first time Konami has done this.. and the complaint wasn't only tossed out of court back then, but it'll probably be this time too, that they're just doing it for sake of argument, or something to that effect.
Carlos has a lot of connections in the distribution industry and such, so I'm inclined to believe him, but can anyone confirm/deny whether or not there's any actual truth to that? I'd think a former happening like that would've been pretty big news, and I sure never heard about it..
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fire_Adept
Trick Member
Joined: 27 May 2005
Location: Mideast Ohio - if DDR, at Boardman |
| 30. Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DancingMewtwo wrote: | This was a good summary -- given that I was in a class last year about IT and IP law, this is something I can easily save and send to my professor from that course to possibly use as a class example.
I wonder when we'll see "Dance Groove Revolution" (that is, after Konami wins its suit and Roxor has to turn over everything to Konami ) |
I think that'd be the best outcome, for Konami to absorb ITG and make it part of their lineup. ITG machines won't have to be recalled, the programmers won't get their asses sued off and kicked into the street (and may even become paid Konami employees under that), and Konami retains the exclusive use of their system. With this, ITG remains intact, the developers can still work on the new game, they'd have Konami's massive funding to help them produce ITG2 games and cabinets...the list goes on and on.
Of course, both sides will be too stubborn to agree to such a thing.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iamstorm
Trick Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Peoria, IL |
| 31. Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fire_Adept wrote: | | DancingMewtwo wrote: | This was a good summary -- given that I was in a class last year about IT and IP law, this is something I can easily save and send to my professor from that course to possibly use as a class example.
I wonder when we'll see "Dance Groove Revolution" (that is, after Konami wins its suit and Roxor has to turn over everything to Konami ) |
I think that'd be the best outcome, for Konami to absorb ITG and make it part of their lineup. ITG machines won't have to be recalled, the programmers won't get their asses sued off and kicked into the street (and may even become paid Konami employees under that), and Konami retains the exclusive use of their system. With this, ITG remains intact, the developers can still work on the new game, they'd have Konami's massive funding to help them produce ITG2 games and cabinets...the list goes on and on.
Of course, both sides will be too stubborn to agree to such a thing. |
And then Konami puts out IT3 with all J-POP .... :-( |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Char
Trick Member
Joined: 30 Apr 2004
|
| 32. Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
/!\ WOOP WOOP UNINFORMED OPINIONS AHEAD /!\
| PedanticOmbudsman wrote: | | "DDR Megamix" and "DDR Extreme Plus" spring to mind as 100% illegal 100% cut-and-dry violations that Konami has let go unchallenged |
Konami and the courts would probably see those as out and out piracy of DDR rather than as competing products using the DDR cabinet.
| Fire_Adept wrote: | | best outcome, for Konami to absorb ITG and make it part of their lineup. ITG machines won't have to be recalled, |
I doubt that would happen anyway. Konami sees Roxor as being in the wrong for making and selling ITG, not arcade owners for buying it. The relief requests all Boxors that Roxor has to be recalled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
| 33. Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Char wrote: | | I doubt that would happen anyway. Konami sees Roxor as being in the wrong for making and selling ITG, not arcade owners for buying it. The relief requests all Boxors that Roxor has to be recalled. |
Emphasis.
NOT ALL BOXORS IN EXISTENCE, ONLY THOSE IN THE HANDS OF ROXOR DIRECTLY.
Thank you.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fire_Adept
Trick Member
Joined: 27 May 2005
Location: Mideast Ohio - if DDR, at Boardman |
| 34. Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Char wrote: | | Fire_Adept wrote: | | best outcome, for Konami to absorb ITG and make it part of their lineup. ITG machines won't have to be recalled, |
I doubt that would happen anyway. Konami sees Roxor as being in the wrong for making and selling ITG, not arcade owners for buying it. The relief requests all Boxors that Roxor has to be recalled. |
| Fire_Adept wrote: | | Of course, both sides will be too stubborn to agree to such a thing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cristyne
Trick Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2002
Location: Northern California |
| 35. Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PedanticOmbudsman wrote: | Here's a procedural/legal question/comment for the legal-minded folks:
I had an idea for an outcome that would be even better than a settlement but I'm not sure if it's legally feasible or likely. Is there any chance that RoXor could do an end-run around all these allegations by challenging Konami's patent and get it completely invalidated?
As I recall, patents are like trademarks in that if you knowingly and consistently ignore violations and fail to defend the patent, you can lose the right to selectively sue for violations in the future, i.e. "use it or lose it." I know this is the case for trademarks (and not the case for copyrights) but I'm not entirely certain about patents.
Is this just a fantasy on my part, or might it actually work? |
Yes and no. Although patents are presumed valid, a defendant can always, during trial (and yes that means it would have to go to trial), assert that the patent (or certain claims in the patent) is invalid, in which case the defendant would win and all would go home happy (except Konami, of course). The patent can be invalidated for a whole host of reasons: someone lied about something important on the application, someone else actually invented it before the patentee claims to have invented it, the patentee took too long to apply for it, etc. However, your patent is NOT invalid just because you didn't enforce it against others.
In trademark law, you can lose the protection of your trademark if your mark becomes generic -- like Kleenex and Xerox. Marks usually become generic because the trademark owner wasn't diligent enough in protecting it. In patent law, your patent is still enforceable against all other people even if you didn't feel like suing everyone who could have infringed it. HOWEVER, there is an equitable doctrine of laches which means that if someone took too long to bring suit against any one person from the time infringement started, the def won't be held liable for past damages. The reasoning behind that doctrine was that a patent holder shouldn't be able to sit on his buttocks and wait til the defendant makes a lot of money before suing him just to get more money from him.
There's another equitable doctrine of estoppel (total sidebar: I really really love saying that word: estoppel. ESTOPPEL!) that basically says if the patent holder made the defendant think he wasn't going to enforce the patent against him, then the defendant wins and doesn't owe anything, even if he infringed on the patent. I don't think not enforcing your patent against other people qualifies as 'making the defendant think he's not gonna get sued,' however.
HTH!
_________________
"Sometimes when you hold out for everything, you walk away with nothing...." - Ally McBeal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 36. Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Roxor filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer on Thursday the 9th, and it was ruled on and granted on the 10th. They now have until July 12th to file a response with the court.
_________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
| 37. Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cutriss wrote: | | Roxor filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer on Thursday the 9th, and it was ruled on and granted on the 10th. They now have until July 12th to file a response with the court. |
Where'd you dig up that from? *wants more legal docs*
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
