Reed MidekeIP/DE also has an account of LaPray's hearing, in which "her" attorney appears to try not-so-subtly representing #Mavexar's interests over hers
https://ipde.com/blog/2024/09/18/mavexar-hearing-update-court-calls-out-attorney-for-defending-mavexar-rather-than-his-client/
That #Mavexar #PatentTroll FAFO appears to have gone about as well as anyone watching these cases might have predicted
https://ipde.com/blog/2024/09/19/mavexar-hearings-court-orders-attorney-representing-stay-at-home-moms-npe-to-preserve-all-of-his-computers-in-their-present-state-for-third-party-investigation/
https://ipde.com/blog/2024/09/19/mavexar-hearings-court-orders-attorney-representing-stay-at-home-moms-npe-to-preserve-all-of-his-computers-in-their-present-state-for-third-party-investigation/
Remarkably, another #Mavexar #PatentTroll entity (in case that was on hold pending other appeals, now resolved) appears to have decided to try the FAFO approach with Judge Connolly
https://ipde.com/blog/2024/08/29/the-latest-chapter-in-a-voluminous-history-of-disturbing-matters/
https://ipde.com/blog/2024/08/29/the-latest-chapter-in-a-voluminous-history-of-disturbing-matters/
After #Mavexar #PatentTroll shell company owner / designated bag holder Lori LaPray lost her appeal, Judge Connolly ordered her to appear at a hearing on Sept 28, which she apparently did, ending the $200/day sanction and leaving her on the hook for $53,000.
And so, to circle back to the start of the thread, that's what a "NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO AND NON-PARTICIPATION IN JUDICIAL INQUISITION" gets you
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63272289/backertop-licensing-llc-v-canary-connect-inc/#entry-68
EFF summary of #Mavexar #PatentTroll cases. Not clear whether the referrals have resulted in any action https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/11/judges-investigation-patent-troll-ip-edge-results-criminal-referrals
Judge’s Investigation Into Patent Troll Results In Criminal Referrals
In 2022, three companies with strange names and no clear business purpose beyond patent litigation filed dozens of lawsuits in Delaware federal court, accusing businesses of all sizes of patent infringement. Some of these complaints claimed patent rights over basic aspects of modern life; one, for...
Straw owner of #Mavexar #PatentTroll shell company lost their appeal, on the hook for $200/day since last August (and AFAICT, also appeal costs). That's a pricey bit of FAFO https://ipde.com/blog/2024/07/17/44200-in-sanctions-and-counting-just-to-avoid-a-trip-to-delaware/
Court appointed amicus' argument the #Mavexar #PatentTroll shell company owners contempt sanction should stand spends a solid couple pages detailing the possible crimes and other misconduct… showing up would probably have been the better option
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67776905/backertop-licensing-llc-v-canary-connect-inc/#entry-41
Meanwhile, appeals court denies #Mavexar #PatentTroll shell company owner's request to stay her $200/day contempt sanction pending appeal, though they do agree to "expedite these appeals so that they will be scheduled for the next available oral argument session after briefing completes" https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67776905/backertop-licensing-llc-v-canary-connect-inc/#entry-23
Whoops. In a different #Mavexar #PatentTroll case, Judge Connolly referred the attorneys to "the Texas Supreme Court's Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, the PTO, and the Department of Justice"
Big #Prenda energy
In Monster 102-Page Opinion, Court Refers Rule-Breaking Mavexar and IP Edge Entities to DOJ, Counsel to ODC
Wow! Today, in the Mavexar cases, Chief Judge Connolly issued a huge, 102-page opinion referring plaintiffs' counsel to the Texas Supreme Court's Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, the PTO, and the Department of Justice to determine whether counsel violated various rules—or federal laws:As it appears that [three Mavexar employees] engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, I will refer them to the Texas Supreme Court's Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee.* * *I believe it appropriate to bring these matters to the attention of the PTO and the Department of Justice to allow them to conduct further inquiry into whether the PTO's rules or [18 U.S.C.] § 1001 were violated. The Department may also deem it appropriate to investigate whether the strategy employed by IP Edge to hide from the defendants in these cases and the Court real parties in interest, including France Brevets, violated any federal laws.Nimitz Technologies LLC, v. CNET Media, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1247-CFC, D.I. 34 at 98, 100 (D. Del. Nov. 27, 2023).If you're not familiar with them, Mavexar appears to be an entity that recruits people to serve as the sole members of shell LLCs that assert patents. The recruited individuals may not fully understand what is going on, and may get something like 5-10% of the proceeds of the patent infringement suits in exchange for accepting all of the risk. It looks like Mavexar sets up the entities, hires the attorneys, and does the work of selecting targets and even drafting claim charts.The opinion goes through exactly what these entities and attorneys did—at least, as far as the Court can tell from the factual record and their production, which was apparently full of holes.In short, the attorneys acted as if they were attorneys for Mavexar and IP edge rather than their nominal clients (the LLCs asserting the patents). They generally didn't communicate with their clients until Chief Judge Connolly started pressing them, which was months after they had been asserting and settling these cases.Instead, the Court describes how they worked almost exclusively with Mavexar / IP Edge employees. Given that Mavexar ...
Judge Connolly apparently also doesn't think much of the #Mavexar #PatentTroll's odds, motion to stay the $200/day fine denied, in part because "Ms. LaPray has not made a strong showing that she is likely to succeed in her appeal"
https://ipde.com/blog/2023/10/03/another-day-older-and-deeper-in-debt/
Another Day Older And Deeper In Debt
Just today Judge Connolly issued another opinion in the Mavexar cases, denying the motion by Backertop Licensing LLC's sole member to stay the Court's order sanctioning her for failure to appear for a hearing.As you may recall, the witness initially attempted to appear via teleconference, citing financial concerns and responsibilities at home and at work. Judge Connolly denied the request, and she ultimately failed to appear for the hearing. Thus began a running fine of $200 per day (that the Court is open) until she appears.Shortly thereafter, Backertop moved to stay enforcement of the order pending appeal. Judge Connolly denied that motion in a short opinion today noting that success on appeal was unlikely:I think it unlikely that Backertop and Ms. LaPray will prevail in their appeal. Indeed, were Ms. LaPray's reading of Rule 45 to be adopted by the Federal Circuit, a resident of Hawaii (which is more than 100 miles from any other federal judicial district) could form a shell LLC, give the LLC no assets except for a questionable patent, assert the patent in frivolous infringement lawsuits filed under the LLC' s name in the other 93 federal judicial districts, and have the LLC engage in fraudulent and sanctionable conduct through the course of those suits with impunityBackertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., C.A. No. 22-572-CFC, D.I. 62 at 5-6 (D. Del. Oct 3, 2023)Given the track record of Mavexar appeals so far, this seems a fair assessment.And so the fine continues to pick up steam. By my count, it has currently been building for 31 taxable days. for a total of $6,200 smackeroos.Given that state of affairs, I thought ...