Support NeoGAF

[gabbo]

Nah, it should be "Living off the Edge" or "Tim Langdell is a **!*".

I'm more interested in what kind of quote phisheep could get from Langdell for the back cover.

 

[phisheep]

I've has a little experience with civil court process, nothing like this, so I don't really know anything.

If you're in the US, then you probably know a load more than I do. Everything I know about US civil procedure is what I've picked up studying this case.

My question is, why is the court seemingly so lax with the stalling and even seemingly unethical motioning by Langdell? It seems this nonsense should have ended long ago and he continues to file inappropriate motions, and possibly even flat out lie with ficticious individuals involved in all of this.

First of all there are legal restrictions on what the court can and cannot do, specifically 37 CFR 2.127(f) which I covered in post #341 above.

Secondly, Langdell isn't an attorney so the legal ethics stuff does not apply to him - at least not in any way that the court has sanctions over.

Third, he's a litigant-in-person - and the courts usually bend over backwards to accommodate such people (most of the time this is only fair if the other side is lawyered-up), and in the absence of effective sanctions (see my first point) there's little the court can do to prevent abuse.

Is it just the pendulum timeframe just hasn't come around yet to hit him hard and it's just slow playing itself out, or is he just going to end up without his trademarks and thats it after al lthis bullshit?

That will be it out of this case. There are other things going on in the UK (I expect, for example a big damages claim by Future). Then it is likely to be criminal charges.

Or can all the people he's fucked with in this mess come back to sue him in civil court?

In theory they could. In practise it is unlikely to be worth their while (see post #252 of the previous thread).

 

[phisheep]

As a side note, I feel like there may be a large element of sociopathic behavior going on with he-who-must-not-be-named (for fear of litigation). Anyone else get that impression?

Don't worry about the possibility of litigation threats. Langdell's reputation is now sufficiently low, and all through his own fault, that it is pretty well impossible to demonstrate damages from further besmirchment. Besides, I keep a close eye on the thread, and if anyone does overstep the mark I'll let 'em know. Pretty well everything I've said about Langdell is backed up by public domain documents and is justifiable fair comment.

Onto sociopathic behaviour. I'd say almost certainly yes.

The WHO definition in ICD-10 is:

The World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth edition (ICD-10), defines a conceptually similar disorder to antisocial personality disorder called (F60.2) Dissocial personality disorder.[5]
It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
- Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them
- Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
- Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
- Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society

I've bolded what I see as the three definites in Langdell's case.

EDIT: but let's not turn this into a medical/psychological thread - at least until all the legal stuff is out of the way.

 

[TheNatural]

If you're in the US, then you probably know a load more than I do. Everything I know about US civil procedure is what I've picked up studying this case.



First of all there are legal restrictions on what the court can and cannot do, specifically 37 CFR 2.127(f) which I covered in post #341 above.

Secondly, Langdell isn't an attorney so the legal ethics stuff does not apply to him - at least not in any way that the court has sanctions over.

Third, he's a litigant-in-person - and the courts usually bend over backwards to accommodate such people (most of the time this is only fair if the other side is lawyered-up), and in the absence of effective sanctions (see my first point) there's little the court can do to prevent abuse.



That will be it out of this case. There are other things going on in the UK (I expect, for example a big damages claim by Future). Then it is likely to be criminal charges.



In theory they could. In practise it is unlikely to be worth their while (see post #252 of the previous thread).

Thanks for the info. I didn't know he could be charged criminally for anything, that would be revenge enough.

 

[phisheep]

Thanks for the info. I didn't know he could be charged criminally for anything, that would be revenge enough.

For a quick run-down of the potential check out post #302 above. And remember that perjury carries a jail sentence of up to 4 years in the US and 7 years in the UK.

 

[phisheep]

It is now past midnight in California, and whichever way you count and whichever time zones you reckon, Langdell is out of time to comply with the Board's latest order.

So his US trademarks (except for Mythora) should be toast.

We'll have to hang around for a while to see what the Board says.

 

[phisheep]

You’d think, wouldn’t you, that given straightforward and incontrovertible advice to shut the fuck up already Langdell might have paid a bit of attention. Not a bit of it. He’s filed two more motions. Well, responses to the Board’s order.

Like his last one, these are way out of order, and the Board is fully entitled to just ignore them, but I suppose we'd better have a look just in case they contain some new and scintillating stuff (sigh).

1. Further Response to the Board’s Order

(a) Para 1 briefly restates (for which I suppose we should be grateful) Langdell’s previous objection to the Order – that

Our prior response focused on the fact the court’s order is void and thus the sole option the Board gave to EDGE to avoid cancellation of the registrations it co-owns with Future was to take action that EDGE cannot take and which the Board could not legally require EDGE to take

This is just false in every respect. The District Court order is not void, EDGE can return to the District Court to seek to overturn the judgment (it won’t work, but there’s nothing but his own fear of the consequences stops him trying), and the Board did not require EDGE to take such action – it just said that unless he did the trademarks would be cancelled.

(b) Para 2 is a rare example of Langdell trying to be humble. I think he read what I said above about possible contempt of court.

While the Board asked that such filings in the District Court be done and proven to the Board within 20-days, we note that the Board did not limit EDGE to 20-days for giving responses to the Board’s order. EDGE thus believes that this further response is timely and in any event respectfully requests that in good faith, and in the interest of reaching decisions that are just and equitable in the proceedings, the Board do consider this further response

Oh horror! He thinks he can just go on like this for ever!

The reason the Board did not indicate a time limit for Edge to respond is that it neither required nor anticipated any responses from EDGE at all. One was too many. Three is way too many.

(c) Part A (paras 3-11) the proceedings should have been dismissed already

This is a very convoluted argument. And incidentally a wrong one. I’ll try to summarise the logic such as it is: EA and Edge agreed to have the proceedings dismissed in November 2010, Langdell kept to his side of the bargain so the proceedings should be dismissed, and besides, he should get to keep the trademarks, or at least some of them.

None of this stands up to scrutiny.

In November 2010 Petitioners and EDGE reached a modified settlement agreement, namely that on the sole condition EDGE filed (note, filed, not that it file and be successful) voluntary surrenders of each of the five registrations herein, then Petitioners consented to the dismissal of these proceedings.

That’s just wrong. The relevant part of the settlement agreement reads:

Pusuant to TBMP 602.02(a), Registrant respectfully moves, on consent of Petitioners pursuant to a settlement reached in the above-captioned dispute that Registration Nos …. be voluntarily surrendered with prejudice.

That’s be voluntarily surrendered, not just filing for voluntary surrender. Anyone who thinks that merely filing for voluntary surrender and then trying to wriggle out of it by reversing the surrenders counts (and yes, Tim, I’m looking at you here), is someone who thinks you have made a payment by cheque if you write out the cheque and then rip it up. And anyone who thinks that filing for voluntary surrender and than not getting the surrender actually made counts is someone who thinks you have made a payment by cheque if you write out the cheque, give it to your creditor and it then gets bounced for insufficient funds.

Either way the payment, or in this case the surrender, has not been made.

It is EDGE’s belief that because of the unusual turn of events that then followed after November 2010, the Board may have lost sight of the fact that Petitioners consented to the dismissal of these proceedings and nothing that has transpired since November 15, 2010 has reversed Petitioners’ agreement to dismiss the instant proceedings, and at no time have Petitioners asked the Board for permission to withdraw or reverse its consent to dismiss these proceedings of November 2010. Consequently, the proceedings should be dismissed

EA may not have expressly withdrawn their consent, but then they did not have to, as Future intervened in the case and objected, and the Board accepted that and reversed the dismissal of the proceedings. There was nothing left for EA to change its mind about.

That Motion on Consent in which the parties agreed to and requested the Board dismiss these proceedings was never withdrawn or reversed and the interparty agreement to dismiss these proceedings on terms stated in November 2010 still stands.

Well, sort of. The agreement may still stand (though that is kind of moot following Future’s intervention), but even if it does it is not effective, as Langdell – despite what he claims – did not keep his end of the bargain.

There was no reasonable basis for the Board to overlook Petitioners consent to dismiss these proceedings just because EDGE’s motion to withdraw its voluntary surrender of Reg. No. 3105816 had been granted. The dismissal was on condition that EDGE file the surrenders …

There was every reason (though actually that was not the sole reason the Board had). Langdell is just wrong about merely filing surrenders being the condition.

The other paras just bang on about which TMs Langdell should get to keep, and are completely beside the point as the preceding argument is so rubbish.

(d) Part B (paras 12-17) Way too hard to summarise in a line

This is very convoluted (also wrong). The basic argument is that since the Board asked Langdell to throw himself on the mercy of the District Court but did not invite Future to do likewise, it must impliedly be saying that Future has no standing to challenge the District Court judgment and therefore impliedly admits that the District Court order is void, for reasons that even I cannot begin to fathom, certainly at this time of night.

It isn’t even worth going through the detail of this argument as, like the first one, it falls down on the very first point.

The fact is that Future has all the standing it needs to challenge the District Court order if it wishes to. It does not have to have been a party to the proceedings, it just needs to have sufficient interest in the outcome.

To take a recent example, by Tim’s logic Future would have no standing to challenge a ruling of the Board, and yet here it is actively involved in the case, having intervened in someone else’s case on the grounds that it was impacted by a ruling.

This sort of thing isn’t in the least unusual. And if Future has sufficient standing to challenge a ruling of the Board, it also has standing to challenge the District Court if it wants to, and the rest of Langdell’s argument goes up in smoke.

Given that it is probably Langdell who got Future involved in the first place (certainly he gloated about it soon afterwards) this is very much his own fault. The same way it is his own fault for getting Velocity Micro involved in the UK High Court case. Man needs to realise he has no friends (as well as no licensees, no trademarks (soon enough) and so on).


---

It is way too late to tackle the other motion now, and the other news (thanks to Kendle at ChaosEdge) that Tim has been caught out domain-squatting on something we haven’t seen before.

I’ll look at those two tomorrow.

Best news out of this is that the Board must realise that the only chance it has of stopping Langdell filing things ad infinitum is to make a quick ruling (and it is entirely obvious what that ruling must be).

 

[Rctdaemon]

Something tells me that this guy is going to be in a lot of trouble... the domain-squatting dispute involves the company that puts on the Rose Bowl. (He owns roseparade.com and according to the complaint, was taking advantage of the name for advertising. He apparently still owns it, but it redirects to the official Tournament of Roses site now.)

http://wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0898

 

[phisheep]

Something tells me that this guy is going to be in a lot of trouble... the domain-squatting dispute involves the company that puts on the Rose Bowl. (He owns roseparade.com and according to the complaint, was taking advantage of the name for advertising. He apparently still owns it, but it redirects to the official Tournament of Roses site now.)

http://wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0898

I love this deadpan bit in the WIPO decision:

The Response does not identify the Respondent “Rose City Enterprises” or its business, and there is no evidence in the record or in the relevant state business entities database that the Respondent “Rose City Enterprises” actually exists as a legal entity. It may be a trade name or alter ego for Dr. Tim Langdell of Pasadena, the administrative contact listed for the Domain Name, who filed the Response in this proceeding, listing himself as the contact for the Respondent. (The Response does not indicate whether this is the same Dr. Tim Langdell of Pasadena, founder of video game developer Edge Games, who has been involved in several highly publicized trademark disputes in recent years.)

 

[faceless007]

This just gets more and more loltastic.

 

[Magna_Mixalis]

Just a random musing while trying to come up with interesting quest names:

Wouldn't be interesting if someone from the courts was following this thread in a vain attempt to keep things straight?

Or would that torpedo any judgment they'd make due to a potential conflict of interest, tampering, potential grounds for bias, etc.?

 

[arglebargle]

Must admit I've been giving a bit of thought into putting this into book form (as somebody suggested further up the thread) - not so much as a Langdell-bash as an exercise in understanding how civil procedure works/doesn't work and how to play the tactics - which is something woefully undertaught in the law schools I have come across.

Gonna be damned hard to slice it up the right way though. I think I will leave it until the fireworks are over and see then if it can somehow be broken up into chapter-length chunks

kindle version please.

 

[gabbo]

You’d think, wouldn’t you, that given straightforward and incontrovertible advice to shut the fuck up already Langdell might have paid a bit of attention. Not a bit of it. He’s filed two more motions.

Scannersheadexplode.gif

He's dug himself a hole so deep he has to try and dig up to get out. I get the feeling this is going to continue to play out for a while with Langdell filing late motions/responses/harshly worded emails until he's locked up

 

[phisheep]

2. Second Further Response to the Board’s Order

Way back when (27 June 2011), Future Publishing filed a response to the USPTO in the course of applying for its own trademark EDGE. In the course of that it claimed ownership of several of Langdell’s trademarks on the grounds that (a) they were already part-owned by Future and (b) that Langdell had voluntarily surrendered his ‘part’ of them.

Langdell makes great play of this in order to try and demonstrate that his voluntary surrenders were ineffective, that this shows there is a dispute between Edge and Future as to the ownership or these marks, that the disputed marks should be retained either in Edge’s name or as jointly owned by Edge and Future, and that the remaining dispute should be the subject of separate proceedings before the Board after the EA case is dismissed.

Rather chillingly, he then says that

EDGE will then vigorously oppose any attempt by Future to divide this registration for many reasons well known to Future

I should think that yet another vigorous opposition by EDGE to anything at all is the last thing that any sane person wants.

All of this is completely beside the point, as the Board is bound by the District Court order and has no authority to deviate from it.

Besides, Future’s filing of 27 June 2011 has been overtaken by events, and was in any case based on a mistaken understanding of the scope of Langdell’s voluntary surrenders, which the Board has already taken account of by joining Future as a defendant and in declining to apply Langdell’s surrenders.

At this stage, Langdell should make himself aware of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to sanction people who play silly buggers. In particular, the case of Johnston Pump/General Valve Inc. v. Chromalloy American Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1719, 1721 n.4 (TTAB 1989) in which counsel was warned that the Board would not tolerate any further “game playing”.

3. Squatting in the Rose Garden

Langdell registered the domain roseparade.com in 1997 in a clear attempt to troll the Tournament of Roses Association which has been running the Rose Parade since at least 1935 (and perhaps under other names from as early as 1895).

WIPO found against him and ordered (1st August 2011) that the domain be transferred to the Association.

That comment that I mentioned earlier:

(The Response does not indicate whether this is the same Dr. Tim Langdell of Pasadena, founder of video game developer Edge Games, who has been involved in several highly publicized trademark disputes in recent years.)

Is judicial-speak for “Yes, it is that arsehole again”. Good to see that word is getting around.

The rest of the ruling confirms that this is Langdell’s usual modus operandi:

The Respondent denies receiving these communications.

Dog ate my homework.

The Respondent contends that the absence of the article “the” in the Domain Name distinguishes it from the Complainant’s mark THE ROSE PARADE.

Though he argues the other way around when it comes to EDGE/THE EDGE!

The Respondent’s comments about the Complainant’s use of the various marks and the unlikelihood of confusion are unpersuasive and inapposite.

Ah. More rubbish arguments.

The Respondent’s intended use is not described, and the Response includes no evidence concerning demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name for any legitimate, noncommercial purpose.

Because, of course, there was none.

the Respondent relies on a baldly asserted intent to make noncommercial use of the Domain Name, with no supporting detail, and with no evidence of such use over a period of 14 years. Instead, the Respondent permitted the Domain Name to be used commercially to display PPC advertising links.

Assertions without evidence. Yep, we’ve seen that before.

In this case, where the Respondent offers no proof of a legitimate, non-infringing use of the Domain Name over a period of 14 years, or even preparations for such use, the presumption is warranted that the Respondent registered and held the Domain Name because it sought in some fashion to trade on the strong reputation associated with the Complainant’s corresponding marks. This reflects bad faith for purposes of the Policy.

Bad faith. Sounds about right.



I must remember to look up the law on vexatious litigation…

 

[Erigu]

Langdell registered the domain roseparade.com in 1997 in a clear attempt to troll the Tournament of Roses Association which has been running the Rose Parade since at least 1935 (and perhaps under other names from as early as 1895).

Makes me wonder how many domains like that one he registered...

 

[phisheep]

Just a quick note to fill in a gap.

Langdell has continually claimed in his most recent submissions, and in a few earlier ones, that it is not possible/not legal for either or both of EDGE and Future to seek relief from from the District Court judgment in the District Court.

I've asserted the opposite of course, but here's the nuts and bolts of it.

Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure covers this nicely:
- Rule 60(b)(4) would expressly allow Langdell to seek relief in the District Court from a judgment that he claims to be void
- Rule 60(d)(2) would expressly allow Future to seek relief from a judgment in an action that they were not notified of

 

[gabbo]

Just a quick note to fill in a gap.

Langdell has continually claimed in his most recent submissions, and in a few earlier ones, that it is not possible/not legal for either or both of EDGE and Future to seek relief from from the District Court judgment in the District Court.

I've asserted the opposite of course, but here's the nuts and bolts of it.

Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure covers this nicely:
- Rule 60(b)(4) would expressly allow Langdell to seek relief in the District Court from a judgment that he claims to be void
- Rule 60(d)(2) would expressly allow Future to seek relief from a judgment in an action that they were not notified of

Haven't both of those things already been knocked down as legitimate claims by either the court or the board at this point?

 

[phisheep]

Haven't both of those things already been knocked down as legitimate claims by either the court or the board at this point?

I think maybe you are thinking of something else.

Langdell is trying to pursue with the Board his claim that the District Court judgment is void, claiming in support of this approach that it isn't possible or legal for him to return to the District Court for relief and that the Board is asking an impossibility.

Rule 60(b)(4) shows that it is both legal and possible and is the correct approach for him to do exactly what the Board ordered.

Such an approach won't work for Langdell of course, because the judgment isn't void (which is what I think you must be referring to - the Board did reject Langdell's claim that it was void). But the fact that it is both legal and possible scuppers Langdell's latest argument.

Rule 60(d)(2) has not come into play yet, and probably won't, as Future have chosen to not challenge the judgment - but it casts (ahem) some doubt on Langdell's claim that there is something underhand and revealing about the Board's not inviting Future to do likewise.

 

[gabbo]

Rule 60(b)(4) shows that it is both legal and possible and is the correct approach for him to do exactly what the Board ordered.

Such an approach won't work for Langdell of course, because the judgment isn't void (which is what I think you must be referring to - the Board did reject Langdell's claim that it was void). But the fact that it is both legal and possible scuppers Langdell's latest argument.

This is what I was referring to.

 

[phisheep]

Duplicate

 

[phisheep]

Section 391 of the California Code of Civil Procedure defines a “vexatious litigant” and the restrictions that can be placed on them. In particular a vexatious litigant cannot file lawsuits without leave of the court, and may be subject to security for costs in any actions (that is, they’d have to pay up front to potentially cover the other sides legal fees). There are apparently similar things in other States, and a similar (but different) regime operates in the Federal Courts.

There’s a really good (if not quite accurate) summary here.

There are four tests to apply – any one of them is good enough. Langdell is unlikely to get caught by (1) or (2) as he doesn’t sue enough and too many of his cases settle. And test (4) won’t apply as he has not yet been declared a vexatious litigant. That might change though, as he falls plum bang into test 3.

(3) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

Ah, now we’re getting there! This is Langdell all over.

In the last week in this case alone he has filed at least three papers that are entirely without merit. And there are plenty more where they came from. At least twelve in just this case.

That is plenty enough to have Langdell declared vexatious. In a California Court.

In Federal Courts it is different and seems to vary from court to court. Some adopt the California statute, some follow 2nd circuit case law, and it is a bit hard to work out just what applies where.

However there’s no doubt anywhere that the Court – whichever one it is – has inherent jurisdiction to deal with offenders. It seems to me that this might happen in the current case. EA and Future won’t seek a declaration now, as it would just delay things further, but the court might do so of its own accord.

That would add a bit of spice, and go some way towards curtailing Langdell's future activities.

 

[phisheep]

Well, that's hardly surprising. Though I don't think it was necessarily the best tactical option, as Langdell will doubtless take the option to respond yet again - while the Board could have just sorted this out on their own.

Still, the motion refers to FRCP 60(b)(4) as i mentioned above to rebut Langdell's claims of 'impossibility'.

Nothing really new in the arguments here, though the last sentence

Respondents no longer consent to dismissal. Rather, judgment of cancellation should be entered immediately.

is quite pithy. Especially the "immediately" bit.

EDIT: I should add here that no, I don't think it would be at all sensible for Langdell to try to rebut this motion - as it would probably just add to his long list of meritless motions so far and increase his risk of being declared vexatious.

 

[Evlar]

At this point, I'm reminded of the closing courtroom scene of Bleak House.

 

[phisheep]

While we have all been paying attention to the US trademark case, all of a sudden a whole bunch of UK trademarks have been revoked a few days ago.

Given the timing, I suspect that this is because Langdell was asked to provide evidence of use of the trademarks and could not do so.

Anyhow, the following ones have been gotten rid of:

1562099A EDGE, for stationery, posters packaging etc relating to video games etc.
2147008A EDGE 3D, for Computer hardware and peripherals, printed materials.
2147013A THE EDGE, for hardware etc, stationery etc, games & toys etc, amusement s & media etc, Rental and consultancy etc.
2147022A MAGIC EDGE, for hardware, stationery, clothing and amusements etc.
2147035A EDGE NET, for hardware, stationery, amusements etc.
2147040A GAMER’S EDGE, for hardware, stationery, clothing and amusements etc.

I will update the OP shortly.

Meanwhile, we are still waiting for the USPTO to make its mind up. This time, it is waiting for a possible response from Langdell which, if it comes at all, will be at the last minute. But it does bother me a bit about these proceedings that nobody has considered putting in a null response to a motion.

Let me explain that.

You put in a motion, and the other side has some time to respond to it - usually 15-20 days or whatever. So a load of time is wasted hanging around waiting for stuff to happen. Now it is perfectly possible for a party to respond to a motion by simply saying something along the lines of "we note the opposition's motion and trust that the Board will treat it on its merits if it has any" - and such a response would slash 14-19 days off the pretrial timescale, put the opponent on the back foot and rock the judges (if the motions are as bad as Langdell's recent ones).

Trouble is usually, you are tempted to add something to that bare sentence - to rebut some slur, to correct some logic, to appeal to some case and so on. But as soon as you fall to that temptation you just added another 15-20 days to the case because you gave the other party something he has to respond to.

Oh well, we'll hang around and see what happens.

EDIT: OP updated

 

[gabbo]

While we have all been paying attention to the US trademark case, all of a sudden a whole bunch of UK trademarks have been revoked a few days ago.

Given the timing, I suspect that this is because Langdell was asked to provide evidence of use of the trademarks and could not do so.

Anyhow, the following ones have been gotten rid of:

1562099A EDGE, for stationery, posters packaging etc relating to video games etc.
2147008A EDGE 3D, for Computer hardware and peripherals, printed materials.
2147013A THE EDGE, for hardware etc, stationery etc, games & toys etc, amusement s & media etc, Rental and consultancy etc.
2147022A MAGIC EDGE, for hardware, stationery, clothing and amusements etc.
2147035A EDGE NET, for hardware, stationery, amusements etc.
2147040A GAMER’S EDGE, for hardware, stationery, clothing and amusements etc.

I will update the OP shortly.

So if I'm reading this right, those trademarks are now up for grabs, and he can no longer take anyone to court over them (not that he could during the proceedings anyway).

 

[Magna_Mixalis]

Thanks for the update, phisheep; I was starting to go through withdrawls...

 

[phisheep]

So if I'm reading this right, those trademarks are now up for grabs, and he can no longer take anyone to court over them (not that he could during the proceedings anyway).

Well "up for grabs" is not quite the right terminology. In real life, unless you are Langdell, you have to be using the marks in business, in order to indicate the source of the goods, not purely descriptive etc etc and ... oh all that trademark blah blah.

So basically, unless you've been using Edge already for videogames (which unless you are Mobigames or Future you have not been), or you are planning on using Edge for videogames (which ain't the smartest idea being as Future and Mobigame hold the trademarks and you don't want to be associated with Langdell), or your business is perched on the EDGE of a cliff .... no chance.

But yeah, they are available as registered marks if you can pass all the criteria (I was going to say 'without lying' - but that may not be true given recent history).

 

[gabbo]

(which ain't the smartest idea being as Future and Mobigame hold the trademarks and you don't want to be associated with Langdell), or your business is perched on the EDGE of a cliff .... no chance.

Ohhh, I was unaware Mobigames held the trademark for videogame purposes.

 

[phisheep]

Ohhh, I was unaware Mobigames held the trademark for videogame purposes.

Yep, applied for and got it (in Europe) while Langdell wasn't looking.

 

[phisheep]

Oh dear oh dear.

I did suggest it would not be a good idea for EA and Future to file a further motion at this stage, for fear of giving Langdell another opportunity to respond and to court further delay.

And, as expected, Langdell has filed yet another motion.

Now I'm kind of busy this weekend so I can't give it the full going-over yet. But on a quick read-through:

- a whole load of rehashed stuff about whether Future should be allowed (whyever not?) to act in tandem with EA

- more rehashed stuff about void judgments, voluntary surrenders blah blah blah

- some complaints that Langdell hasn't yet been able to find a lawyer to represent him (not that that comes as any surprise to me)

- and finally, Langdell claims now to have filed with the District Court to deem the judgment void (and attaches a copy of his motion to do so)

I can't see that motion on the 9th District dockets yet, and I won't believe it until I see it. But even if it is there, this seems to me to be a big old mistake on Langdell's part.

He'll either get slammed, and probably held in contempt, by the District Court if his motion fails - as I think it will. Or if he succeeds in rendering the Court's final judgment void all that does is take him back to the Court's penultimate ruling that he face immediate deposition on the fraud allegations. Either way he faces penalties.

Man's desperately playing for time, because that is all he has left. He appears to be hoping that EA and Future will give up at some stage like his previous victims have. I hope very much that they do not.

The Board has several options available:
- it can immediately order the cancellation of the trademarks at issue pursuant to the District Court's judgment
- it can immediately declare Langdell a vexatious litigant, leaving him liable for security of costs in further proceedings (and perhaps requiring leave of the court to file his latest motion)
- it could roll over, suspend the proceedings pending whatever happens in the District Court and let Langdell win yet another temporary victory. This it should not do.

I'll be back in a few days with detail probably.

 

[Dead Man]

EA needs to hire you phiship, at least for this case.

 

[gabbo]

So he's really, really for sure backed into a corner if Future and EA don't suddenly back down?

 

[Vormund]

So he's really, really for sure backed into a corner if Future and EA don't suddenly back down?

Which judging by previous behaviour means he'll try some even more batshit crazy stuff.

Love the updates phisheep.

 

[phisheep]

So he's really, really for sure backed into a corner if Future and EA don't suddenly back down?

He is backed into a corner so hard that his spine is getting sharpened.

Meanwhile, Langdell has filed another motion, so good that he's filed it twice, in which he seeks to suspend the Board proceedings pending the Federal Court's ruling on whether its judgment is void (and we can all guess which way that one is going to go).

Even more blatantly than usual, Langdell is wrong on all counts everywhere in these recent submissions. This is nothing more than an attempt to inject more delay and expense into the proceedings.

To understand it, let's step back to the previous motion that I left you in the lurch on last week - and in particular to Schedule B, which purports to be Langdell's filing with the District Court. Note that we've not seen so far any evidence that the court has received this or that the filing has been accepted into court - we have only Langdell's word for this.

In this filing Langdell:
- requests a hearing before Judge Alsup no earlier than August 16th 2012
- to have the court's order declared void on the grounds that it impacted on Future's co-ownership of some of the trademarks
- and makes the valid point that there is no time limit on seeking relief from a void order

He's missed two things though. First, there's the grounds of challenge to the order. There does not seem to be any ground for claiming the court did not have jurisdiction over the parties or the subject-matter, and due process seems to have been observed. And since one of the trademarks at issue had already been divided between Edge and Future at the time of the judgment, and Future's co-ownership of the other two was not on record at the time there is nothing on the record to indicate that the judgment could be void on its face. So (and secondly) it can only be voidable, and for that it is not at all clear that Langdell or Edge has the standing to challenge the order. Normally only an injured party may do so - and here the injured party is not EDGE but Future Publishing, and Future has not chosen to challenge it.

So it won't work. It is a delaying tactic only.

Lets's have a quick look at Langdell's arguments in the surrounding motion to the Board (it will all be old hat to regular readers I'm afraid):

Para 1 - complains that EA and Future are ganging up on him (hurrah!)

Para 2 - claims quite falsely that EA alleges fraud and/or abandonment against Future

Para 3 - claims, again falsely, that EA accused Future of fraud and abandonment in the District Court (despite Future not being even mentioned in EA's pleadings!)

Para 4 - builds on these falsehoods to claim that Future is acting irrationally

Paras 5-8 - seek to draw the inference that Future must believe the District Court judgment to be void on its face

Para 9 - rather plaintively hints that the Board should just have ignored the District Court order, but it is a wimpish paragraph as I suspect even Langdell now understands that the Board is bound by superior courts

Paras 10-16 are painful rehashes ("with deep respect") of Langdell's previous bad arguments to undo various Board rulings. Read them yourself if you want to.

Paras 17-18 are worth a bit of a look:

Twenty days was not a fair and reasonable amount of time for the Board to give Edge Games just to retain legal representation, let alone for Edge Game’s newly retained counsel to draft and file any motion (or other document) with the District Court or the Court of Appeals, or to decide what course of action might be appropriate given the Board’s demand.

Langdell has had six and a half months since the District Court ruling. That's plenty of time to challenge it. Twenty days is generous.

Indeed, even now, despite Edge Games consistently seeking to engage attorneys to represent it in respect to this request to show proof of relief or application for relief, so far Edge Games has not been successful in identifying or retaining such legal representation. This is not due to any delay or inaction on Edge Games’ part – Edge Games has been in discussions with several potential law firms since the moment it received the Board’s March 30 Order – rather, it is due to the fact that it is a truism that this is a very complex issue and it will take time for Edge Games to identify and retain legal counsel, far more than the 20 days given or indeed the number of days that have passed to-date, and for such new legal counsel to consider and draft whatever motion or other filing might be appropriate to
seek the proof of void order, or further relief, that the Board is requesting.

In translation - Langdell is going to find it very difficult to find a lawyer to represent him on this, because all manner of professional ethics and potential sanctions lie against an attorney who takes the line Langdell wants.

Para 19 - more about void judgments, but let's go over it one more time:

The consensus from more than six reputable law firms Edge Games has been
discussing instructing to represent it in relation to FRCP 60(b)(4) is that a motion under this Rule is only appropriate where a court’s ruling is voidable but not when it is void on its face. That is, a motion under FRCP 60(b)(4) should only be filed when there is some doubt as to whether a court’s order may be void, in its entirety or in part, but it should not be necessary when a court order is (as here) void on its face due to the clear and obvious absence from the proceedings of a necessary and indispensable party that the order impacted.

Langdell doesn't understand what 'void on its face' means. At its simplest, this would be something like a properly documented and reasoned judgment followed by an order that gave relief to the wrong party - where you could tell simply by reading the judgment that it was wrong.

That's not the case here.

Langdell, in his own little world, appears to be asking his lawyers the wrong questions.

Para 21 - is where Langdell gives in and (claims to) file the motion we've just looked at, though not without a final halfhearted plea to the Board - in para 22 - to just ignore the judgment anyway!

----

That's enough of that lot.

Langdell's latest is to attempt to suspend the Board proceedings while he is losing things in the post from the District Court. That's kind of normal procedure (and we've seen it here before) where a higher court ruling is potentially dispositive of whatever is going on at the Board.

Actually though, I'm not so sure that this one is.

If by some extraordinary miracle the District Court order is declared void, that says nothing about the status or disposal of EA's claims of fraud and abandonment before the Board. And if it isn't declared void then we have the status quo and the proceedings can continue anyway (though it beats me why they are still going on).

Thing is, the Board proceedings have no further purpose. The USPTO is bound by a court order to cancel the trademarks, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there are proceedings before the Board.

The smart thing for the USPTO to do now would be to cancel the trademarks (all five of them) immediately, so that Langdell no longer has a status quo to defend. Mind you, that has been the smart thing for USPTO to do for six and a half months and it still has not done it.

The smart thing for EA and Future to do would be to put in a very brief response (almost, but not quite, a null response) along the lines that:
- while we follow the general direction of Dr Langdell's argument, we believe it has no legal merit
- we fail to see how Dr Langdell's motion to void the District Court judgment would be dispositive of the instant proceedings
- nevertheless, we will accede to suspension of these proceedings subject to immediate cancellation of the five marks at issue in accordance with the District Court's order and after considering whether Dr Langdell should be branded a vexatious litigant

This gives Langdell very little to bite back at, while steering the Board in the right direction.

The smart thing for Langdell would be to find a better lawyer - which means one that he listens to rather than one that listens to him.

I'll give him one thing though - he is good at delays.

 

[kami_sama]

Why is he still going? I think he's already lost all credibility.

 

[phisheep]

Why is he still going? I think he's already lost all credibility.

Because he's still got the trademarks I suspect.

 

[gabbo]

Because he's still got the trademarks I suspect.

How has he not burned through any/all money taken due to the trademarks by this point. I have to imagine continuing these ridiculous proceedings doesn't come cheap, even if you defend yourself.

 

[phisheep]

How has he not burned through any/all money taken due to the trademarks by this point. I have to imagine continuing these ridiculous proceedings doesn't come cheap, even if you defend yourself.

If you defend yourself (or even if you are the plaintiff) it costs nearly nothing to pursue a court case. Nothing but time and paper, and with internet filing even the paper comes free these days. Provided, that is, that you don't go to the expense of such things as finding witnesses, researching the truth, letting things get as far as an actual trial and getting lumbered with costs orders and so on.

I imagine Langdell is still handily in profit with the £300,000 he took from Future, even if he made nothing from anybody else, but on top of that there's the various University posts he has held trading on his 'reputation' in the industry.

This is why a vexatious litigant finding would be important, it would oblige him to put cash up front for future litigation which should hobble him a bit.

 

[kafiend]

Must admit I've been giving a bit of thought into putting this into book form.

The Edge of Unreason.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

Can't they just judge him guilty on the count of court draggingoutage at this point? He's obviously just wasting everyone's time and money. Why is he allowed to persist with his nonsense?

Langdell: Your...
Judge: No.
Langdell: But t...
Judge: NO.
Langdell: I...
Judge: FIVE YEARS IN THE COAL MINES. *BANG*

The End.

 

[The Bookerman]

If I see Langdell at e3, I'll make sure I spit on his face.

 

[phisheep]

Well whaddayou know? Langdell did actually file that motion with the District COurt.

We know this two ways.

First of all, Langdell filed another motion before the Board yesterday, showing evidence (a stamped copy of the motion) that he had filed it and seeking yet again to suspend or dismiss the Board proceedings.

That's not great evidence, but it is evidence of a sort.

More importantly, the motion now shows up on the District Court docket as filing #81. So it is for real. So we are back in the District Court, which means I have to shell out real money to read the stuff. Pest. Also means it is not available free-to-view for you guys.

Just a reminder for anyone not paying attention - Langdell is seeking to have the District Court motion stripping him of his trademarks declared void on a whole bunch of spurious grounds.

Unsurprisingly, EA have moved to strike Langdell's motion out - on the very straightforward grounds that under Civil Local Rule 3-9(b) a corporation may only be represented by an attorney, and Langdell isn't one.

Corporation or Other Entity. A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.

Neat move. Because as we know Langdell is having a bit of difficulty finding a lawyer.

I have absolutely no idea what will happen next, or when - but I will try to keep an eye on it.

Now, you might wonder why this point was not made in the original District Court proceedings that Langdell brought. I suspect it was because EA wanted to get the fraud allegations on the table in their counterclaim.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

showing evidence (a stamped copy of the motion) that he had filed it and seeking yet again to suspend or dismiss the Board proceedings.

Probably a potato jobbie.

 

[GashPrex]

Well whaddayou know? Langdell did actually file that motion with the District COurt.

We know this two ways.

First of all, Langdell filed another motion before the Board yesterday, showing evidence (a stamped copy of the motion) that he had filed it and seeking yet again to suspend or dismiss the Board proceedings.

That's not great evidence, but it is evidence of a sort.

More importantly, the motion now shows up on the District Court docket as filing #81. So it is for real. So we are back in the District Court, which means I have to shell out real money to read the stuff. Pest. Also means it is not available free-to-view for you guys.

Just a reminder for anyone not paying attention - Langdell is seeking to have the District Court motion stripping him of his trademarks declared void on a whole bunch of spurious grounds.

Unsurprisingly, EA have moved to strike Langdell's motion out - on the very straightforward grounds that under Civil Local Rule 3-9(b) a corporation may only be represented by an attorney, and Langdell isn't one.



Neat move. Because as we know Langdell is having a bit of difficulty finding a lawyer.

I have absolutely no idea what will happen next, or when - but I will try to keep an eye on it.

Now, you might wonder why this point was not made in the original District Court proceedings that Langdell brought. I suspect it was because EA wanted to get the fraud allegations on the table in their counterclaim.

Defaulting corporations and/or striking their pleadings for their failure to use an attorney is a valid attack as its technically the unauthorized practice of law.

 

[Magna_Mixalis]

@phisheep: You've been paying for court transcripts throughout all of this?! Set up a Paypal account or something, I'm sure that a number or us will be more than happy to help defray the costs.

Also, I don't remember if I've asked this one before (I did a quick skim of my posts and didn't see anything), but why hasn't anyone's lawyers file a suit/motion against the board for not complying with the court order to cancel all of the trademarks? Aren't they technically in contempt at this point?

Just a random thought.

 

[phisheep]

@phisheep: You've been paying for court transcripts throughout all of this?! Set up a Paypal account or something, I'm sure that a number or us will be more than happy to help defray the costs.

It amounts to less than $100 so far. I can wear that. If it gets too much, I'll ask for help.

Also, I don't remember if I've asked this one before (I did a quick skim of my posts and didn't see anything), but why hasn't anyone's lawyers file a suit/motion against the board for not complying with the court order to cancel all of the trademarks? Aren't they technically in contempt at this point?

Just a random thought.

Well, actually, it isn't the Board that that is defaulting against the court order. If anyone is, it is the Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office (or something like that) personally.

An extra lawsuit probably would not help matters along, as all you'd get is another court order - and ignoring two court orders is no more difficult than ignoring one. The USPTO is pretty well aware, as we see from the Board's most recent rulings, of their responsibilities here. It just seems that they have got themselves knotted up by Langdell and have tried too much to bend over backwards to accommodate him, instead of leaning forwards and striking his nose with their metaphorical forehead.

Gah. You can tell I've been reading too much Lee Child recently.

 

[phisheep]

Another motion to strike Langdell's submission has been filed today.

Chances are it is not interesting enough to be worth the $3 download, so I'm going to wait until something actually happens and then backtrack to the relevant motions.

Sorry folks, but there is a limit even to my patience.

 

[phisheep]

Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that EA has filed opposition to Langdell's motion to have the District Court judgment declared void. It's not available free-to-view, so I'll run through it in outline.

Here's the summary paragraph though for starters.

In short, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally infirm, substantively infirm, and unsupported by the governing law and undisputed facts. It should be denied.

By way of background, EA exposes a number of Langdell's false statements (made of course under penalty of perjury) - a couple of examples will do to illustrate this:

On July 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in which Plaintiff again alleged that it owned “all right, title and interest in and to” the Subject Marks. Dkt. No. 6 ¶¶ 11, 14. As before, those allegations were false. And, as before, Plaintiff offers no explanation for its false allegations.

on August 29, 2010, EA and EA DICE filed a Counterclaim in which they correctly alleged that Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest had assigned a portion of its interest in those marks to Future. Dkt. No. 28 ¶¶ 33, 64. Inexplicably, Plaintiff now asserts that “EA failed to draw to the court’s attention” that the Subject Marks were owned jointly by Plaintiff and Future. Mot. at 2:16-18.

EA also points out (with evidence in support) that Future were notified of the proceedings and chose not to intervene or object, and drops hints about Langdell's atrocious behaviour in trying to get the Board to ignore the court ruling:

Plaintiff not only opposed Future’s request, but it thereafter filed numerous motions of its own to the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board seeking to avoid cancellation of the Subject Marks and arguing that the Court’s judgment is void and should be disregarded by the USPTO. .... Future and EA each opposed these motions by Plaintiff.

On to the legal arguments. there are three (all supported by legal authorities):

A) that failure to join an indispensable party to the proceedings does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, so does not give grounds for relief from the judgment. That's what I've been arguing all the way along since Langdell first claimed the judgment was void.

B) that Future Publishing was not deprived of due process (because it was on notice of the proceedings, consented to cancellation, and has since waived any claim of lask of due process)

C) that even if relief were granted it should be granted in favour of Future and not in favour of Edge Games, so the relief would be simply to strip Edge Games of its interest in the trademarks. That of course is exactly not what Langdell wants.

There's a couple of attached declarations and appendices, but most of if is familiar stuff (such as the TTAB docket), the only significant new one is a declaration from Future that it was on notice of the District Court proceedings, doesn't object to cancellation of the trademarks and doesn't and won't seek to have the judgment overturned. Which kind of undermines much of Langdell's argument, not that it needed any more undermining!

 

[kami_sama]

Wow, what a wanker he is. And thank you for translating all the documents! It's very informative!

 

[SiegfriedFM]

Whenever this is finished, I think I'll celebrate.