A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Mavexar

A Crab in a Corner

Nathan R. Hoeschen, April 4, 2023
Mavexar Litigation Funding

When I was young, I had a pet crab. Not a hermit crab, but a big honking giant land crab. He lived in a terrarium in my room and I would wave at him every day when I left for school. He would wave back. This is the best part of having a crab.

I Miss You Too Legs!
I Miss You Too Legs! Alejandro Alas, Unsplash

What you might not know about crabs, is that they're smart. They are curious creatures that will spend their whole day wandering around foraging. They will slowly stack rocks in one corner of their tank to make a ramp. They will specifically make this ramp in the corner of the tank that has the inlet for the water filter. They will (somehow) remove the clamps holding the top down and seize freedom at any cost. It's pretty much like the velociraptors in Jurassic Park.

Longtime readers will have guessed that this story is leading to a development in the Mavexar saga. And readers, I will not disappoint you. Just hours ago, Judge Connolly issued a memorandum order in the Nimitz case setting ...

View

New Discovery Order in One of the Mavexar Cases

Andrew E. Russell, March 31, 2023
Mavexar Litigation Funding

Mavexar Crab

We haven't written about Mavexar for a while. But a new order today shows that the Court hasn't let up.

We discussed last year how, following a hearing in which the nature of Mavexar came out, the Court ordered the parties and attorneys in some of the Mavexar cases to submit to the Court a broad range of communications among the plaintiffs, Mavexar, and their attorneys.

Today, the Court issued a similar order in an additional case, Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., C.A. No. 22-572-CFC (D. Del.). That case was the one at issue in the November 10 hearing, where the owner of Backertop testified that she is a paralegal who is married to …

View

Federal Circuit Denies Mandamus Petitions, Says Court Can Act After Dismissal

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 4, 2023
Mavexar Mandamus

OK Nate, you win. Mavexar is a crab now.
OK Nate, you win. Mavexar is a crab now. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

We posted last month about two more mandamus petitions regarding Chief Judge Connolly's recent efforts to enforce his standing orders regarding disclosure requirements in his cases.

The Mavexar saga is getting a bit complicated, so here is a quick recap of the mandamus petitions:

  • Chief Judge Connolly scheduled hearings in several cases regarding various plaintiffs' compliance with his standing orders
  • In two of the hearings, the plaintiffs explained that an entity called Mavexar recruited the plaintiffs and took up to 95% of their proceeds
  • The Court ordered some of the Mavexar entities to produce a broad range of communications among the plaintiffs, Mavexar, and their attorneys
  • One …
View

Mavexar Goes On Tour

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Jan. 3, 2023
Mavexar Litigation Funding

So, my new year's resolution was not to write any more about the Mavexar hearings until we got something really juicy. Unfortunately, due to the holidays there hasn't been much else to write about these last few weeks. I made it almost 3 days though, which is a personal best for resolutions of this sort.

Howdy Crab Monsters!
Howdy Crab Monsters! AI-Generated, displayed with permission

One of the more interesting aspects of the Mavexar hearings has been the general lack of participation from the opposing parties in the hearings, many of whom have already been dismissed. This unique state of affairs has left me to imagine what the papers might look like if a defendant really went to town on the issue.

Last …

View

Nimitz is Taking Another Shot at Mandamus

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 29, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

This case, man, it's nothing but twists.

Happy New Year Crab Monsters!
Happy New Year Crab Monsters! AI-Generated, displayed with permission

As we noted last week, Following the Federal Circuit's denial of their mandamus petition, Nimitz failed to produce the documents ordered by the Court by the December 8th deadline. Judge Connolly responded by issuing an order for Nimitz to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for that failure.

Well, Nimitz Responded

On the deadline to respond to the show cause order, Nimitz filed a short (653 word) paper explaining why it had not produced the documents. The upshot is that it intends to seek rehearing of the denial of its mandamus petition:

Nimitz is filing a Combined Petition For Panel Rehearing …
View

Court Orders Mavexar Entity to Show Cause Why It Should Not Be Sanctioned

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 15, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

Before we get too deep into the weeds on round 237 of the Mavexar saga, I wanted to propose a mascot. Something we can use on the site so that you can instantly spot one of these posts (you can also use the tags, of course). Having given it all the thought I am prepared to, I propose Mavexar the crab-monster.

Here he is happily greeting you and welcoming you to sit by his fire.

Happy Holidays Crab Monsters!
Happy Holidays Crab Monsters! AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Andrew may have a competing vision, but for now, look for Crab Man!

Anyway.

A Missed Deadline

Following the Federal Circuit's denial of Nimitz's Mandamus petition last week, we saw our first action from Judge Connolly on these newly un-stayed cases. I had not recalled that, under his original order, the plaintiff was scheduled to produce the documents related to its relationship with Mavexar and IP Edge by December 8. As it happens, that was the same day the Federal Circuit lifted the stay.

Neither the Federal Circuit's preliminary stay order, nor its ultimate denial of the mandamus petition adjusted that deadline. Nor, apparently, did Nimitz request the District Court amend that deadline.

So the 8th came and went with no production of documents. Indeed, up through yesterday there is no mention of the submission on the docket, which ultimately led the Court to issue a brief order requiring Nimitz to "show cause as to why it should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the November 10 Memorandum Order." Nimitz Technologies LLC v. CNET Media, Inc. C.A. No. 21-1247-CFC, D.I. 37 (D. Del. Dec. 14, 2022). The Court did note, however, it would ...

View

Briefing Complete on Two More Mandamus Petitions Related to the Mavexar Hearings

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 14, 2022
Mavexar Mandamus

A Creek View
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

We've posted a lot about the Mavexar hearings. Earlier this month, two of the plaintiffs in cases that had hearings scheduled, Creekview IP LLC and Waverly Licensing LLC, filed nearly-identical petitions for mandamus.

The petitions are linked below. In each, the petitioner seeks to reverse Chief Judge Connolly's order scheduling an evidentiary hearing to investigate compliance with the Court's standing orders:

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court issue a writ of mandamus reversing the Memorandum Order and ending the judicial inquisition of Petitioner.

The petitions argue that the Court lacked Article III standing, because the cases had been dismissed, that Chief Judge Connolly abuse his discretion in issuing the standing order, and that Congress has …

View

EXTRA! EXTRA! Federal Circuit Denies Nimitz Petition

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 8, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Late breaking news in the Mavexar saga today.

Very Brief Background

Nimitz technologies was one of the Mavexar-related entites that appeared at a hearing last month before Judge Connolly, where they were ordered to:

"produce to the Court" (1) their communications with Mavexar and IP Edge regarding (a) Nimitz's formation, acquisition of patents, and potential liability for asserting those patents in these cases, (b) the 328 patent, and (c) the initiation and settlement of the cases Nimitz filed in this Court; (2) retention letters and/or agreements between Nimitz and [plaintiff's attorney's] firm; (3) monthly bank statements for any and all bank accounts held by Nimitz for the time period during which it filed the 11 complaints …
View

A B-Plot in the Mavexar Saga

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 6, 2022
Mavexar Mandamus

Hasnain Sikora, Unsplash

The Federal Circuit made its second foray into the Mavexar (I think) saga on Friday when it ruled on a new petition for Mandamus is In re: Swirlate IP LLC.

The plaintiff in Swirlate filed a petition for mandamus on November 30, seeking to stop a scheduled December 6 hearing.

I should note at the outset the while the Swirlate case seems to mimic the M.O. of a Mavexar entity—a Texas LLC with a single managing partner with no apparent connection to the patent—the Court has not yet held a hearing on the issue, so we can't say conclusively that the matter is related. It was, however, scheduled for a hearing in December that that sole …

View

Amicus Brief Mentions Backertop's Failure to Disclose Mavexar Under C.D. Cal. Rules; Backertop Tries to Fix It

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 1, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

I'm not sure what to make of the name
KWON JUNHO, Unsplash

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 ...

View
Newer
Older

Archive