We mentioned the other day that Backertop Licensing LLC, one of the Mavexar-related LLCs, had filed two new cases in the Central District of California. We talked about how the C.D. Cal. requires disclosure of parties with a pecuniary interest, and how Backertop had not disclosed Mavexar.
Yesterday, the HTIA filed an amicus brief at the Federal Circuit that pointed this situation out (citing our post!):
In the past week alone, an entity that appears related to Mavexar (Backertop Licensing, LLC) filed suit without disclosing Mavexar’s financial interest, despite a local rule requiring disclosure of “all persons … and corporations … that may have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case.”
Also yesterday, Backertop filed new disclosure statements in each case, now identifying "Mavexar LLC." I can't tell if those new statements were filed before or after the amicus brief. Either way, we've now updated the previous post.
Of course, their amended disclosures state that Mavexar's "connection / interest" is that they are a "Consulting Agent for Plaintiff," which is a funny way to say "party who runs the litigation and is entitled to 95% of the proceeds."
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
