This one here.
It's not worth going through in a lot of detail.
The first 23 pages (the main body and Exhibit A) are an extended and repetive attempt to claim, yet again, that the District Court’s order was “void on its face” and must be ignored. It’s pretty well the same argument that Langdell used in his motions of 18th March and 19th March, and before that on and off since 29 Sept 2011. It’s not any better an argument now than it was then.
Pages 24-44 are a large rant about EA and Future allegedly conspiring to buck the court system in order to steal Langdell’s trademarks. The words “outrageous”, “Machiavellian”, “deeply dishonest” all loom large in the first couple of paragraphs. “Wholly disingenuous” doesn’t make an appearance for another 14 paragraphs – but you get the drift.
In the course of this Langdell digs up a bunch of the Chaosedge evidence that was used by EA and asserts in each case that the documents he presented to the USPTO were genuine, that EA and Future perpetrated fraud and photoshop amongst other things to falsify evidence against Langdell, and that Judge Alsup was royally duped by the whole thing into believing that Langdell was a trademark troll (which Langdell says is a fiction entirely cooked up by EA and Future).
One thing he doesn’t mention at all is why, if all this evidence was so verifiably false and cooked up against him, he agreed to settle the District Court action entirely to his own detriment rather than taking it to trial.
There is no answer to that. Not one that is in any way convincing.
Along the way (footnote 1 to page 29) he repeats the claim – which he probably even believes by now so often has he said it – that the District Court order confirmed the validity of Edge’s common law trademark rights in the US (and so, by extension, that the whole embarrassing collapse of the case was a “victory” for Edge). The order did no such thing, it did say that any common law rights that Edge might have were not being removed, but that says nothing at all about their validity (or even about their existence).
The remaining 6 exhibits comprise some heavily-redacted emails and witness statements from Future; some prints from the Edge website; some stuff about the Mobigame settlement; some more redacted witness statements and a bunch of irrelevant stuff from the UK courts.
It’s a whole heap of unmitigated tripe. Well, there are a few potentially interesting nuggets buried in there but nothing that makes his legal arguments any good and nothing that I can be bothered to winkle out right now.
Oh well, let’s see what happens.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that somewhere buried in all that there's a pretty blatant threat to take this to appeal if the Board doesn't go Langdell's way. I'm pretty sure that is an empty threat, being as he has no legs left to stand on and would need a proper lawyer who would be obliged to tell him so.
EDIT AGAIN: I just realised there is a self-contradiction in Langdell's argument here. It is a lynchpin of his attempt to pursue this "void on the face of it" mislogic through the Board rather than the District Court that there is no legal way through the courts to obtain relief from a void judgment (allegedly) - not through reference to the court that made the order, not by appeal, not any way. So what makes him think an appeal would work then? By his own logic it wouldn't. On the other hand he cites in his support a few Supreme Court judgments. How does he think they got to the Supreme Court eh? By appealing, that's how. But if an appeal can work, it means he's wrong about there being no legal redress, and that the Board is right about being bound by the District Court order in the meantime. Ha! Get out of that one!
. But this truly will be a win for the fans if it ends up going as we all assume/believe it will. Good to hear the USPTO is getting around to things now.