From my other post of November 10:
Also, in reviewing the PACER that Wolf originally posted yesterday about the substitution, it seems that, although I read it again very hurriedly, Otteman's firm is enrolling only for TPL/Alliacense...
From Wolf's PACER re the T3's opposition:
1 The other co-owner of the patents-in-suit, defendant Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Patriot”),
has been represented by the same counsel since this dispute began in 2008 and is not being
substituted.
This certainly raises all kinds of issues and questions. One of the first things that came to mind is, who's paying for the new attorneys since the Farella firm isn't withdrawing? Is PTSC supposed to share in the expense of the new firm, or was the MA effectively modified so that TPL and PTSC are each paying their own attorneys? And primarily, why would TPL and PTSC need separate counsel in this litigation, where their interests (i.e., proving infringement on the part of the T3 and defending the validity of the MMP) are theoretically aligned?
In contrast to my last post, now knowing that the Farella firm remains involved, this may cut againt the granting of the continuance. In that event, who suffers? Only TPL, or does PTSC get dragged along?
Just when you think things had gotten a bit less complicated.......
